On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 08:43:58PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
> In message <1256152779-10054-2-git-send-email-vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx>, Valerie Aurora writes:
> > From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Break early when somebody tries to rehash an already hashed dentry.
> > Otherwise this leads to interesting corruptions in the dcache hash table
> > later on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/dcache.c | 1 +
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> > index 9e5cd3c..38bf982 100644
> > --- a/fs/dcache.c
> > +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> > @@ -1550,6 +1550,7 @@ void d_rehash(struct dentry * entry)
> > {
> > spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> > spin_lock(&entry->d_lock);
> > + BUG_ON(!d_unhashed(entry));
> > _d_rehash(entry);
> > spin_unlock(&entry->d_lock);
> > spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
>
> This patch seems unrelated to union mounts. If so, can you get it pushed
> upstream sooner? Or is this a debugging patch useful only when developing
> union mounts?
>
> You also said that it can lead to "ineresting corruptions". What kind of
> corruptions exactly? Also, would it make more sense to allow _d_rehash() to
> hash in an unhashed dentry for the first time?
Hi Erez,
Thanks for your great review! I am working my way through your
comments one by one.
This is a trivial patch which happened to be useful during our
development and seems like it might be useful for other VFS-related
development. I will submit it as part of our VFS patch set and drop
it if the maintainers don't want it.
I don't have an opinion on _d_rehash(), I'm afraid.
-VAL
--
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
