Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:14:21 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/10] sysfs tagged directories |
| |
Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:10:15PM +0200, Benjamin Thery wrote: >> Here is the announcement Eric wrote back in December to introduce his >> patchset: > > <snip> > > Are the objections that Al Viro made to this patchset when it was last > sent out addressed in this new series?
I'm trying to recall. Al was nervous when the approach was described to him but I don't remember him looking at specific patches and objecting.
There was also an issue about races in sysfs between rename and unlink that Al brought up, that causes real problems in at least one piece of code that uses that functionality. I have been busy so I don't know if anyone has addressed that issue. It is independent but this patchset may make that issue slightly harder to fix.
If the concern is Al nervousness with respect to locking order (and that is complex) the only really sane way to fix that is to dig into the VFS and change the lock ordering so that is friendlier to distributed filesystems like sysfs.
This patchset does not introduce any new lock ordering issues but it may make the existing convolutions we have to go through to keep the dcache for existing file handles in sync with the internal sysfs tree more visible. As of my last posting I am not aware of any locking problems in the code itself.
Greg I had thought you had dropped the patchset simply because you got busy. I know it languished for a long time because of that.
Eric
| |