On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:24:45 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 15:20 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > > Furthermore, it would upset a lot of people to change the current > > > behaviour which does support remote rename, and has supported it for the > > > past 10 years at least. I'd therefore prefer to go for a workaround that > > > addresses the problem of the deadlocks instead of the useful > > > functionality. > > > > OK... I'll look into your variant again when I get some sleep - I'm > > afraid that there are remaining holes, but right now I'm not in any > > condition to verify that (or prove that there's none)... Later tonight... > > Argh... We are going to need to hold the i_mutex of the parent of the > alias too. If not, other processes that are in the middle of an rmdir > will break. > > Please scrap the old patch. This one should follow all the VFS locking > rules, and error out when there is a conflict. -/** - * d_move - move a dentry +/* Why not leave this as kernel-doc? (using "/**") + * d_move_locked - move a dentry * @dentry: entry to move * @target: new dentry --- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
