On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sorry this is a bit late. In fact I still have a review backlog (at a
> minimum some bugfixes), so will send a second pull later.
Quite frankly, I'm not going to pull this without lots of explanations.
The VFS-level changes have no acks or sign-offs from anybody else, and
quite frankly, if I understand them correctly they look f*cking
disgusting. If I read them right, they break delegations of a file
(which can involve long waits for clients - no?) while holding on to
the directory inode lock (both directories for cross-inode renames).
Which seems to be a singularly idiotic thing to do and sounds to me
like a fundamental design mistake.
We simply don't do these kinds of VFS changes without having
discussions and acks from people, notably Al.
As to "second pull later" - if you haven't reviewed the code already,
it's damn well much too late in the merge window to do it now.
So quite frankly, this *all* looks like 3.6 material to me, and that's
assuming you can convince people that file-delegation breaking really
should happen with all lookups on the directory the file is in blocked
by the directory inode mutex in the first place. Or tell me I'm a
moron and I misread the patches and don't know what I'm talking about.
Linus
--
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
