On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:27:25 +0400 Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2011/8/31 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > I think you need to make sure you're holding the i_mutex of the parent > > for this. Most of these sorts of dentry operations require it. > > > > In the case of this patch, we can have a negative parent - so, can't > hold i_mutex here. It seems to me that we need extra cifs mutex for > dealing this it. > In the event of a positive parent, how do you intend to ensure that the dentry is not instantiated via other codepaths (lookup or readdir?) It's not clear to me though that this is really a problem though in any case. In the event that you "re-instantiate" the dentry, the old inode will just end up being put (and likely eventually freed). Sure, the inode number might change, but that's life with noserverino. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
