On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 12:41 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:06 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > Yeah, a hangover from changes done over time. >> > > Not setting the dentry op in ->lookup() should fix this. >> > >> > Alex, care to test just removing the d_set_d_op() call from autofs4_lookup()? >> > >> > (That code is a bit scary, though - it explicitly makes it a negative >> > dentry with a d_instantiate(dentry, NULL), and then hides the inode >> > information away separately. Scary scary) >> >> Yeah, but the expire to mount races with autofs are difficult to handle >> and this approach has worked well under heavy stress testing. It's true >> that this would almost certainly be bad for a file system that supported >> a full range of functionality but that's not so for autofs. > > I think I have to partly take this back. > With Nick's recent vfs-scale patches this may not be OK any more since > the dcache_lock has gone away and, at first glance, it looks like the > added autofs4_lock spin lock doesn't provide the needed protection. Hm, what are the concurrencies that you need protection from? -- 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
