On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:01 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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? Ha, I think I'm wrong about this, after looking more closely at this I'm struggling to see why autofs4_lock is needed at all. -- 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
