[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinVdrY7AHFCjDIWAD0yLGhLYZwwHH3kKXBlkD5v@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:31:38 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
V9FS Developers <v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [GIT PULL] 9p file system bug fixes for
2.6.35-rc2
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net> wrote:
>
> I think that you need to use the s_vfs_rename_mutex in the super_block
> struct instead of introducing a new rename_lock in the v9fs session.
I actually think it's better to avoid having filesystems muck around
with VFS locking details. Also, I think we get the VFS rename mutex
only for cross-directory renames, and as mentioned, 9p needs locking
even for regular directory renames.
(Also, this way you can have parallel readers - although we could
obviously change the vfs rename mutex into a rw-sem too).
So I do think that keeping the logic private to a 9p-specific lock is
the right solution here.
Linus
--
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