On 16 Jun 2017, at 10:54, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 09:50 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/unlink.c b/fs/nfs/unlink.c
>> index 191aa577dd1f..28628dde38b9 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/unlink.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/unlink.c
>> @@ -288,6 +288,17 @@ static void nfs_async_rename_release(void *calldata)
>> if (d_really_is_positive(data->old_dentry))
>> nfs_mark_for_revalidate(d_inode(data->old_dentry));
>>
>> + /* The result of the rename is unknown. Play it safe by
>> + * forcing a new lookup */
>> + if (data->cancelled) {
>> + spin_lock(&data->old_dir->i_lock);
>> + nfs_force_lookup_revalidate(data->old_dir);
>> + spin_unlock(&data->old_dir->i_lock);
>> + spin_lock(&data->new_dir->i_lock);
>> + nfs_force_lookup_revalidate(data->new_dir);
>> + spin_unlock(&data->new_dir->i_lock);
>> + }
>> +
>
> One more minor nit:
>
> It's quite possible that old_dir == new_dir. If that's the case you'll
> be doing the same operation twice here. Maybe add a check for that and
> only mess with new_dir here if old_dir != new_dir?
Hmm.. yes that would be better, OK! I'll send it again.
>> dput(data->old_dentry);
>> dput(data->new_dentry);
>> iput(data->old_dir);
>> diff --git a/include/linux/nfs_xdr.h b/include/linux/nfs_xdr.h
>> index b28c83475ee8..1aca3d7c1810 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/nfs_xdr.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/nfs_xdr.h
>> @@ -1533,6 +1533,7 @@ struct nfs_renamedata {
>> struct nfs_fattr new_fattr;
>> void (*complete)(struct rpc_task *, struct nfs_renamedata *);
>> long timeout;
>> + bool cancelled;
>> };
>>
>> struct nfs_access_entry;
>
> This looks good to me though. You can add this to both patches.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for all the suggestions and review!
Ben
--
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
