[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100210210248.GP30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:02:48 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [WTF] ... is going on with current->fs->{root,mnt} accesses in
pohmelfs
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 04:30:07PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > > Why not use the dentries you've been given by VFS?
> > >
> > > At writeback we do not have parents, so must find a path somehow.
> >
> > Most of the places do have those just fine and unlike the writeback,
> > rename et.al. really care which pathname is being dealt with...
>
> POHMELFS uses writeback cache also for metadata, so effectively most of
> such operations are also postponed. Later I turned that off though.
>
> > BTW, what prevents writeback vs. rename races?
>
> There are proper locks for such operations.
Which would be... ? E.g. between writepages() and rename(). What serializes
your write_inode_create() wrt renames? IOW, how can the server decide that
data from writepages() should go to the same object regardless of the
rename?
--
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