[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwvtdJsFEit4N3OVKZH2jpvxnB9843nhQeqGu99aUOQpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:42:02 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
Subject: Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Frankly, I would very much prefer to have the same locking rules wherever
> possible. The locking system is already overcomplicated and making its
> analysis fs-dependent as well... <shudder>
I do agree that it would be better if we avoid it. I was just trying
to explain that the dentry locking is *not* enough, for the simple
reason that it relies on upper-level non-dentry locking just to work.
Your patch looks good, but whether it works I have no idea ;)
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