On Tuesday, January 11, 2011, J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Nick Piggin: >> This is a big and complex change by any measure, so >> please don't be afraid to ask for help or clarification. I'd >> also really like to be able to update documentation >> based on questions from fs maintainers (in and out of >> tree) who are trying to follow it and bring their code up to >> speed. > > Question about what d_lock protects. > Can we skip d_lock when we access d_inode and d_name during its parent > i_mutex is held? That is a good observation. I think we are ok here because parent mutex should stabilize children names and linkages. But the documentation for a lot of locking is not complete. It would be nice to improve. > Should these BUG_ON be placed after d_lock? > > void dentry_update_name_case(struct dentry *dentry, struct qstr *name) > { > BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dentry->d_inode->i_mutex)); > BUG_ON(dentry->d_name.len != name->len); /* d_lookup gives this */ > > spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock); > ::: > > > J. R. Okajima > -- 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