On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:29:33AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:02:48PM +0000, Al Viro (viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Which would be... ? E.g. between writepages() and rename(). What serializes
> > your write_inode_create() wrt renames? IOW, how can the server decide that
> > data from writepages() should go to the same object regardless of the
> > rename?
>
> rename and some other metadata operations as well as write itself
> request remote lock (if not grabbed already), acknowledge forces writeback to old path.
Um. You do realize that d_move() happens with none of your locks held,
right? It's done in vfs_rename_{other,dir}() and the only thing held
is s_vfs_rename_sem and i_mutex on parents. How could your code in
writeback be able to distinguish
rename() is done
d_move() has happened, we see new pathname in dcache
from
rename() is done
d_move() has not yet happened, we see old pathname in dcache
and generate the right on-the-wire traffic in both cases? Note that here
server has already seen rename request; as far as server and client are
concerned the rename() is over.
--
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
