[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTin67OXYYKk6y+_MKfXEXBz-F_+qAH0cpiJ24yEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:51:42 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: aelder@....com
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [announce] vfs-scale git tree update
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Alex Elder <aelder@....com> wrote:
>
> FYI, when using this code, as merged by Linus, I hit the
> BUG_ON() at the beginning of d_set_d_op() when it's called
> by autofs4_dir_mkdir(). I managed to work around it by
> just commenting out those BUG_ON() calls but it's something
> that ought to get addressed properly.
Yeah, removing the BUG_ON() isn't the right thing to do - it means
that autofs4 is obviously setting the dentry ops twice for the same
dentry.
Possibly the thing could be relaxed to allow setting the _same_ d_op
pointer, ie do something like
if (dentry->d_op == op)
return;
at the top of that function. But looking at it, I don't think that
fixes the autofs4 issue.
The fact that autofs4 does "d_add()" before it sets the d_ops (or
other dentry state, for that matter) looks a bit scary. To me that
smells like it might get a dentry lookup hit before it's actually
fully done.
Does it make any difference if you move the various d_add() calls down
to the end of the functions to when the "dentry" has really been
instantiated?
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