[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110114032052.GV19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:20:53 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: vfs-scale, d_revalidate from nfsd
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 02:12:35PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> The main idea here would be to just pass in a flags parameter rather
> thank poking in nd to get the rcu-walk status. That would solve this
> problem and also avoid nd for most filesystems that don't care about
> it.
Start with nd->flags getting passed explicitly, and be ready to see
* call on the final stage of open split away and folded with
->lookup() and ->open()/->creat()
* the rest of callers to lose nd completely.
That's what's going to happen in the next cycle.
BTW, why on the earth do you have that:
static int xattr_hide_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
{
if (nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU)
return -ECHILD;
return -EPERM;
}
when the sole intent of that sucker is to have dentry of /.xattr (pinned
in dcache and hashed all along) rejected on lookups from root? IOW, WTF
bother with -ECHILD here at all?
--
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