On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 04:27:53PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Linus, are you OK with me slapping your s-o-b on it? > > > > Yup. > > > > And it feels so right that I think we should just do it for 3.0. It looked sane, but in fact was insane. Enough testing for now, I say it's good to go, if you fold in this small adjustment... [PATCH] fix sense of __read_seqcount_retry test Hah, good thing I hacked something in to check we're going the quick way: __read_seqcount_retry() returns *true* when a retry is needed. Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/namei.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- 3.0-git+/fs/namei.c 2011-07-18 18:31:36.273731128 -0700 +++ linux/fs/namei.c 2011-07-18 18:32:35.158022444 -0700 @@ -960,7 +960,7 @@ static bool __follow_mount_rcu(struct na * so we can use __read_seqcount_retry() to check the prev * sequence numbers. */ - if (!__read_seqcount_retry(&path->dentry->d_seq, nd->seq)) + if (__read_seqcount_retry(&path->dentry->d_seq, nd->seq)) return false; path->mnt = mounted; path->dentry = mounted->mnt_root; -- 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
