Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> In general everything that writes to vfs inodes holds the >> inode mutex, so hold the inode mutex over sysfs_refresh_inode. >> The sysfs data structures don't need this but it looks like the >> vfs might. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sidenote: Hmmm... Originally, sysfs completely depended on vfs locking > but with sysfs_dirent separation, the tree structure itself and some > attributes went under the protection of sysfs_mutex while leaving more > vfs oriented fields under vfs locking. This patchset makes sysfs > lazier so it can't depend on any vfs layer locking. I think you've > converted all necessary places while removing dependency on > dentry/inode from update operations but it might be a good idea to do > a audit pass over how fields are being protected now. You raised a good point. I took a quick second pass through. I did not see anything I have missed, and I did not change anything else on the vfs path. So at the very least I don't expect there are any locking related regressions. Eric -- 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
