On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:45:51AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > You know what... I doubt that you want to mess with ->d_seq checks here. > It's definitely not Hugh's bug (unless he has bindings somewhere odd) and > both ->mnt_mountpoint and ->mnt_root are pinned (and we are holding > vfsmount_lock anyway). *inode assignment too early is a real bug, indeed, > and we want to assign nd->seq if we cross mountpoint as both versions do, > but check just before that is, in the best case, BUG_ON() fodder. We'd > just found a vfsmount with ->mnt_mountpoint equal to path->dentry; it *can't* > be stale, or we have a really nasty problem anyway. Kudos to neilb for spotting the pointless check, BTW; and no, his theory that it might be needed since we could race with umount() is wrong - due to vfsmount_lock being held. -- 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
