linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-scale tree with the v9fs tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D2363E7.30101@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:16:07 -0800
From:	"Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)" <jvrao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-scale tree with the v9fs
 tree

On 1/3/2011 5:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-scale tree got a conflict in
> fs/9p/vfs_inode.c between commit 3d21652a1d23591e7f0bbbbedae29ce78c2c1113
> ("fs/9p: Move dotl inode operations into a seperate file") from the v9fs
> tree and various commits from the vfs-scale tree.
> 
> I fixed it up by using the v9fs changes to that file and then applying
> the following merge fixup patch (which I can carry as necessary).
> 
> Someone will need to fix this up before one of these trees is merged by
> Linus, or to send this merge fix to Linus.
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:33:54 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] v9fs: merge fix for changes in the vfs-scale tree
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c b/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c
> index 38d5880..9dd534b 100644
> --- a/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c
> +++ b/fs/9p/vfs_inode_dotl.c
> @@ -78,11 +78,11 @@ static struct dentry *v9fs_dentry_from_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>  {
>  	struct dentry *dentry;
> 
> -	spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> +	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>  	/* Directory should have only one entry. */
>  	BUG_ON(S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) && !list_is_singular(&inode->i_dentry));
>  	dentry = list_entry(inode->i_dentry.next, struct dentry, d_alias);
> -	spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> +	spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);

Are we doing away with dcache_lock?

I am not sure if the i_lock can serve the same purpose..but looks like with the
current code
there may not need any lock around this code. Aneesh/Eric do you guys have any
comments?


>  	return dentry;
>  }
> 
> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ v9fs_vfs_create_dotl(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int omode,
>  				err);
>  			goto error;
>  		}
> -		dentry->d_op = &v9fs_cached_dentry_operations;
> +		d_set_d_op(dentry, &v9fs_cached_dentry_operations);

Assuming that this is a macro to the same operation.. rest of the changes look
fine to me.

Thanks,
JV

>  		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  		err = v9fs_fid_add(dentry, fid);
>  		if (err < 0)
> @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ v9fs_vfs_create_dotl(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int omode,
>  			err = PTR_ERR(inode);
>  			goto error;
>  		}
> -		dentry->d_op = &v9fs_dentry_operations;
> +		d_set_d_op(dentry, &v9fs_dentry_operations);
>  		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  	}
>  	/* Now set the ACL based on the default value */
> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ static int v9fs_vfs_mkdir_dotl(struct inode *dir,
>  				err);
>  			goto error;
>  		}
> -		dentry->d_op = &v9fs_cached_dentry_operations;
> +		d_set_d_op(dentry, &v9fs_cached_dentry_operations);
>  		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  		err = v9fs_fid_add(dentry, fid);
>  		if (err < 0)
> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static int v9fs_vfs_mkdir_dotl(struct inode *dir,
>  			err = PTR_ERR(inode);
>  			goto error;
>  		}
> -		dentry->d_op = &v9fs_dentry_operations;
> +		d_set_d_op(dentry, &v9fs_dentry_operations);
>  		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  	}
>  	/* Now set the ACL based on the default value */
> @@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ v9fs_vfs_symlink_dotl(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>  					err);
>  			goto error;
>  		}
> -		dentry->d_op = &v9fs_cached_dentry_operations;
> +		d_set_d_op(dentry, &v9fs_cached_dentry_operations);
>  		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  		err = v9fs_fid_add(dentry, fid);
>  		if (err < 0)
> @@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ v9fs_vfs_symlink_dotl(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>  			err = PTR_ERR(inode);
>  			goto error;
>  		}
> -		dentry->d_op = &v9fs_dentry_operations;
> +		d_set_d_op(dentry, &v9fs_dentry_operations);
>  		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  	}
> 
> @@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ v9fs_vfs_link_dotl(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir,
>  		ihold(old_dentry->d_inode);
>  	}
> 
> -	dentry->d_op = old_dentry->d_op;
> +	d_set_d_op(dentry, old_dentry->d_op);
>  	d_instantiate(dentry, old_dentry->d_inode);
> 
>  	return err;
> @@ -757,7 +757,7 @@ v9fs_vfs_mknod_dotl(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int omode,
>  				err);
>  			goto error;
>  		}
> -		dentry->d_op = &v9fs_cached_dentry_operations;
> +		d_set_d_op(dentry, &v9fs_cached_dentry_operations);
>  		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  		err = v9fs_fid_add(dentry, fid);
>  		if (err < 0)
> @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ v9fs_vfs_mknod_dotl(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int omode,
>  			err = PTR_ERR(inode);
>  			goto error;
>  		}
> -		dentry->d_op = &v9fs_dentry_operations;
> +		d_set_d_op(dentry, &v9fs_dentry_operations);
>  		d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
>  	}
>  	/* Now set the ACL based on the default value */


--
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/