On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 15:30 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 15:22 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 19:53 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kent <ikent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > The locking for the list traversal in get_next_positive_subdir() is > > > > wrong, so fix it. > > > > > > As an explanation, this kind of thing is totally useless. It doesn't > > > actually give any information at all. It's like saying "change > > > locking" > > > > > > What happened, and why? Why is the new nested spinlock ok and won't > > > deadlock against other nested users? Wazzup? > > > > It's good that you questioned this Linus. > > > > Looking again at dput() I think the traversal still isn't quite right. > > > > For a start the test for d_count 0 or positive and hashed can never be > > Correction, that second check is actually !(positive and hashed) in the > code. > > > true since the point of the change was to take the d_lock of the > > d_subdirs dentry for the traversal. That's not right, ignore this. > > > > I'll need to work on this some more, thanks. > > Ian > -- 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
