[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100211030253.GQ30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:02:54 +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 Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:29:33AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:02:48PM +0000, Al Viro (viro@...IV.linux.org.uk) wrote:
> > 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?
>
> rename and some other metadata operations as well as write itself
> request remote lock (if not grabbed already), acknowledge forces writeback to old path.
Um. You do realize that d_move() happens with none of your locks held,
right? It's done in vfs_rename_{other,dir}() and the only thing held
is s_vfs_rename_sem and i_mutex on parents. How could your code in
writeback be able to distinguish
rename() is done
d_move() has happened, we see new pathname in dcache
from
rename() is done
d_move() has not yet happened, we see old pathname in dcache
and generate the right on-the-wire traffic in both cases? Note that here
server has already seen rename request; as far as server and client are
concerned the rename() is over.
--
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