On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:24:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Here's a series for fixing issues with d_drop on a directory dentry with
> children and adding support for such dropped directories in fuse.
>
> This one fixes a couple of issues I found with the previous incarnation and
> split out the filesystem parts into individual patches.
OK in general, but I'm not happy with the proliferation of such iterators in
fs/dcache.c ;-/
We have have_submounts(), select_parent() and d_genocide(), with one more
such sucker added to the pile. Sure, most of the callers of have_submounts()
are gone after that patchset, but we still have several left:
fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c:542: err = have_submounts(path.dentry);
fs/autofs4/root.c:381: if (have_submounts(dentry)) {
fs/autofs4/waitq.c:338: if (have_submounts(dentry))
fs/nilfs2/super.c:1010: if (have_submounts(root_dentry))
The thing is, the same race with mount() does, AFAICS, apply at least to
autofs4 call sites.
And I would like to understand what nilfs one is trying to do...
Unless I'm seriously misreading that code, it's *not* on any kind of a hot
path, so I really wonder why don't we simply do shrink_dcache_parent() +
check if d_count has dropped to 1, without trying to look for submounts
first - if we have any, shrink_dcache_parent() is simply going to leave
us with d_count > 1 and that's it. Actually, it's cheaper that way -
no need to walk the tree twice. Moreover, checking for d_count == 1
case first is also pointless - in that case we have no children at all
and shrink_dcache_parent() will return immediately. Could nilfs folks
explain why (and if) we need to bother with all that complexity there?
We are really getting too many tree walkers in fs/dcache.c and
all that duplication is the prime breeding ground for bugs ;-/
--
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
