[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMQTMnfmOfdv2DpA@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 01:51:46 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/7] kernfs: use VFS negative dentry caching
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 09:08:05AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> But if I change to take the read lock to ensure there's no operation
> in progress for the revision check I would need the dget_parent(), yes?
WTF for? ->d_parent can change *ONLY* when ->d_lock is held on all
dentries involved (including old and new parents).
And it very definitely does *not* change for negative dentries. I mean,
look at the very beginning of __d_move().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists