On Monday 23 June 2008 16:01:44 Al Viro wrote: > Umm... I don't see problems with doing that, but I hope you realize that > the notion of "ever having that name" is not the same as "pathnam > resolution on that name ever leading to that file" - path_walk() is *NOT* > atomic wrt rename() (or mount --move, indeed) and it's quite possible to > walk into subdirectory, have it moved under you, then see .. as the next > pathname component and step out into new parent. Yes, that's understood. Relative lookups don't visit all directories up to the root (unless via ".."), so there can be infinite time between walking down a directory and computing a pathname for it. > Said that, it makes sense to avoid dropping/regaining the lock in that > case - it's less work and I don't believe that it would increase contention > on vfsmount_lock. So I'm applying that one, just be careful with > assumptions about consistency, etc. in the general area. Thanks. Andreas -- 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
