On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 05:47 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:58:37AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:28:57AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > > > > Ha, I haven't even turned on my Ultrsparc 2 in months, it's only got an > > > old version of Solaris on it now anyway, ;) > > > > U60, with lenny (and mainline kernel) on it. Probably ought to upgrade > > to squeeze one of those days... It works, all right, but it's only 2-way, > > so reproducing would probably be harder. Plus the fun of building the tests > > themselves on somewhat different userland... > > > > Anyway, I wonder why you care about __d_lookup_rcu() and ->d_inode stability; > > d_mountpoint() _is_ stable at that point (we hold vfsmount_lock) and you > > don't seem to look at ->d_inode at all in RCU case. Note that ->d_automount() > > is never called in RCU case at all; nor is ->lookup() and friends, so you > > really only have ->d_manage() to cope with, what with autofs4 having no > > ->d_revalidate() anymore. > > FWIW, can we _ever_ get to __do_follow_link() with link->mnt != nd->path.mnt? > It's probably not what's happening here, or we would've stepped on another > BUG_ON(), but still it might be worth checking... > > AFAICS, if we ever get there that way, we are fscked, so the check before > mntget() ought to replaced with BUG_ON(link->mnt != nd->path.mnt)... Yeah, don't think autofs can go their with no ->follow_link() defined. I've largely ignored that code to date. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
