[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1tzhkzald.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:10:06 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] sysfs tagged directories
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
> Ah I see it, thanks.
Serge thanks for your productive and detailed reply to this.
> The last question of Al's which went unanswered was
>
>> Excuse me, _what_? Are you seriously suggesting going through all dentry
>> trees, doing d_move() in each? I want to see your locking. It's promising
>> to be worse than devfs had ever been. Much worse.
>
> I think this is answered in patch 4. So yeah, it does d_move() in each
> sysfs mount. It's all done under the sysfs_rename_mutex. Judging by
> the phrasing of the question, is that not acceptable?
We also have to call sysfs_grab_supers to ensure none of the superblocks
we know about will go away during the rename. I believe that is the
only locking change from the current code.
Eric
--
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