On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 08:36:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> I really believe that this pair of commits needs to be reverted. The
>> earlier code used to guarantee that alias would be detached.
>
> In the case that prompted that first commit, the directory in question
> had an alias that was detached (which I'm taking to mean IS_ROOT(dentry)
> was true?), but not flagged DISCONNECTED. The particular case was only
> reproduceable on an older kernel, and I couldn't find a similar
> reproducer on recent upstream, but I also couldn't convince myself it
> was impossible.
>
> So, maybe the correct thing is to revert that change. Or maybe it
> should be picking an IS_ROOT dentry instead of a DISCONNECTED one?
I've reverted the changes for now, it looks like the discussion about
them is still on-going, and I think I'll feel happier if we just go
back to the old status quo for the nonce.
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
