In message <20080402201330.689695350@xxxxxxxxxx>, Miklos Szeredi writes:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx>
>
> Introduce path_rename(). Make vfs_rename() static.
[...]
> +int path_rename(struct path *old_dir_path, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> + struct inode *new_dir, struct dentry *new_dentry)
> +{
> + int error = mnt_want_write(old_dir_path->mnt);
> +
> + if (!error) {
> + struct inode *old_dir = old_dir_path->dentry->d_inode;
> +
> + error = vfs_rename(old_dir, old_dentry, new_dir, new_dentry);
> + mnt_drop_write(old_dir_path->mnt);
> + }
> +
> + return error;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(path_rename);
You're grabbing a want_write ref on the source vfsmount only. Shouldn't
path_rename() call mnt_want_write on *both* the source and destination
vfsmounts? If so, do we need to order the locks ala lock_rename()?
Erez.
--
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
