[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Mfj1WBO2567ogjU=8xwfGO9OVH5V+wmURa5qo@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:57:22 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Important for fs devs: rcu-walk merged upstream
On Tuesday, January 11, 2011, J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Nick Piggin:
>> This is a big and complex change by any measure, so
>> please don't be afraid to ask for help or clarification. I'd
>> also really like to be able to update documentation
>> based on questions from fs maintainers (in and out of
>> tree) who are trying to follow it and bring their code up to
>> speed.
>
> Question about what d_lock protects.
> Can we skip d_lock when we access d_inode and d_name during its parent
> i_mutex is held?
That is a good observation. I think we are ok here because parent
mutex should stabilize children names and linkages.
But the documentation for a lot of locking is not complete. It would
be nice to improve.
> Should these BUG_ON be placed after d_lock?
>
> void dentry_update_name_case(struct dentry *dentry, struct qstr *name)
> {
> BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dentry->d_inode->i_mutex));
> BUG_ON(dentry->d_name.len != name->len); /* d_lookup gives this */
>
> spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> :::
>
>
> J. R. Okajima
>
--
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