[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17645.23129.674328.872688@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:50:49 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: lockdep annotation
On Thursday August 24, arjan@...radead.org wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 16:12 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > I had flags the fh_lock in nfsd_setattr a I_MUTEX_CHILD which you
> > didn't however I see that isn't needed (Why do we have PARENT and
> > CHILD and NORMAL.... you would think that any two would do ??)
>
> for cross directory renames 3 are needed ;(
I see....
If one of the source/dest directories is an ancestor to the other
it gets _PARENT while the descendent gets _CHILD,
otherwise the destination gets _PARENT and the source gets _CHILD.
I guess the terms 'PARENT' and 'CHILD' refer more to the relationship
of the locks than the relationship of the directories.
(If the destination name exists, it gets locked with _NORMAL)
I still find the terminology a bit confusing.
_GRANDPARENT -> _PARENT -> _NORMAL
would make more sense to me, but maybe it isn't that important.
Thanks for the explanation.
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists