[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikmgaoBsf5neCxM9jYCJGkdAS1QC2k0zKUTW2=8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:38:15 +0100
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: Josh Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"sandeen@...hat.com" <sandeen@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ext2: Resolve i_nlink race in ext2_rename
Hi,
2011/2/24 Josh Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>:
> Jan
>
> I'm not seeing the problem with your patch as was expected since we're
> not messing with i_nlink anymore. Al suggested marking the inode as
> dirty where we were previously doing the old_inode dec. I believe this
> is needed as well since we are updating it's ctime. I've attached a
> version marking the inode dirty and it also fixes the comment making
> reference to calling inode_dec_link_count().
>
> I'm not completely clear on the historical reasons for messing with the
> link count of old_inode in the first place. It was just to simulate the
> linking and unlinking of the old_inode?
>
> Thanks
> Josh
>
can we share your test/benchmark? I'd like to add it to my test suite
as no-regression test.
Marco
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists