![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 11:17:12PM +0100, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:03:16PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > Actually, what may happen is that since the dentries are added > > in the front, a double move like that would result in hash chain > > traversal looping. Timing dependent and unlikely, but d_move_count > > avoided that theoritical possibility. It is not about skipping > > dentries which is safe because a miss would result in a real_lookup() > > Not really. A miss could result in getting another dentry allocated > for the same e.g. directory, which is *NOT* harmless at all. AFAICS, a miss in __d_lookup would result in a repeat lookup under dcache_lock in which case we are safe or real_lookup() which in turn does another lookup with dcache_lock. Is there a path that I am missing here ? Thanks Dipankar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||