On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 01:22:41AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > In my last round of patches that I sent out today. I did put mount_lock > just outside of rename_lock, in d_splice_alias. But apparently you > haven't noticed. I have. The problem I have with that one is that you end up with duplicated logics rather than taking it to one place. > Now at this point I have hit the limit of my time available for rewrites > before the merge window. We can go with my 7 patch variant I posted > today (whose only sin appears not to be your implemenation), it's > trivial reduction that Linus likes because it is simple, someone else > can write one, or this can all wait until the next development cycle. ... or either of us can do merging those checks into a single place, be it as a followup to your 7-patch series, or folded with the fs/dcache.c-affecting patches in there. If you have no time left, I can certainly do that followup myself - not a problem[1] And umount-related followups are just that - I'm not asking you to do those, especially since as I said this stuff is sensitive to fs_pin details (so far it appears to fold nicely with the __detach_mounts()/umount_tree() stuff, BTW). [1] with credits for your patches preserved - normally I would assume that this goes without saying, but your reply seems to imply that I'm playing some kind of political BS games, so I'd rather spell that out. -- 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
