[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGudoHE5SrcUbUU8AuMCE1F_+wEUfM4o_Bp9eiYjX0jtJPUUmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 10:11:04 +0100
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, clm@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: make sure to fail try_to_unlazy() and
try_to_unlazy() for LOOKUP_CACHED
On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:07 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 09:47:04AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > One remaining weirdness is terminate_walk() walking the symlink stack
> > after drop_links().
>
> What weirdness? If we are not in RCU mode, we need to drop symlink bodies
> *and* drop symlink references?
One would expect a routine named drop_links() would handle the
entirety of clean up of symlinks.
Seeing how it only handles some of it, it should be renamed to better
indicate what it is doing, but that's a potential clean up for later.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists