[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150605150939.GA2174@tucsk>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:37:29 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sa-dev@...nbow.by,
andre.roth@...he.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ovl: allow distributed fs as lower layer
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:07:15AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Umm... Cosmetical point is that this
>
> > +static bool ovl_remote(struct dentry *root)
> > +{
> > + const struct dentry_operations *dop = root->d_op;
> > +
> > + return dop && (dop->d_revalidate || dop->d_weak_revalidate);
> > +}
>
> is better done as
> root->d_flags & (DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE | DCACHE_OP_WEAK_REVALIDATE)
Okay.
>
> More interesting question is whether anything in the system relies on
> existing behaviour that follows ->d_revalidate() returning 0.
Hmm, d_invalidate() almost always follows ->d_revalidate(). Almost, becuase RCU
lookup can get aborted at that point. We can easily stick d_invalidate() in
there for the non-RCU case.
Regular lookup also almost always follows ->d_revalidate(). Except if
allocation of new dentry fails. So relying on this would be buggy (which is not
to say nobody does it).
> Have you tried to mount e.g. procfs as underlying layer and torture it for a
> while?
I did try now. Nothing bad happened during the test (parallel stat(1) of the
whole overlayed proc tree).
My laptop froze while trying to write this mail. But it's 8 years old and when
the fan starts to make noises and the weather is hot, it does this sometimes. I
don't think that has anything to do with overlayfs, but will do more testing...
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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