On Thu, 2022-08-11 at 22:22 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 05:08:11PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > Actually, I never got a formal ack from Al. I did send it repeatedly,
> > but I assume he has been too busy to respond. We've had it sitting in
> > linux-next for a couple of months, and he did suggest that approach in
> > the first place, but I too would also prefer to see his official ack on
> > it.
>
> "Suggested approach" had been about inode_insert5() changes, right?
Right. I was talking about this patch (which I think is sane):
fs: change test in inode_insert5 for adding to the sb list
> But that's fs/inode.c side of things... I have to admit that I'd missed
> the unlining d_same_name() - exporting the sucker per se didn't look
> insane and I hadn't looked at that in details ;-/
>
> Looking at it now... might be worth renaming it into __d_same_name(),
> leaving it inlined and exporting a wrapper; not sure if the impact on
> d_lookup()/__d_lookup()/d_alloc_parallel() is worth worrying about it,
> though.
>
> Profiling a case when we have a plenty of files in the same directory
> on tmpfs, with something earlier in the pathname to kick out of RCU
> mode (e.g. going through /proc/self/cwd) might be interesting...
The d_name_name changes seemed ok to me, but it would be good to have
your ack (or qualified NAK) if possible.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
