On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:02 +1000, npiggin@xxxxxxx wrote: > plain text document attachment (fs-dcache-scale-d_subdirs.patch) > Protect d_subdirs and d_child with d_lock, except in filesystems that aren't > using dcache_lock for these anyway (eg. using i_mutex). > > XXX: probably don't need parent lock in inotify (because child lock > should stabilize parent). Also, possibly some filesystems don't need so > much locking (eg. of child dentry when modifying d_child, so long as > parent is locked)... but be on the safe side. Hmm, maybe we should just > say d_child list is protected by d_parent->d_lock. d_parent could remain > protected with d_lock. > > XXX: leave dcache_lock in there until remove dcache_lock patch This still suffers the problem John found, right? -- 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
