2011/8/31 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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?) If dentry is negative we don't have it reachable from userspace (cifs mount point always starts with a positive one) - no lookups and readdirs from here. If I am mistaken, point me to it, please. > 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> > -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- 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
