lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 17/30] Unionfs: remove unnecessary locking in follow-link
Date
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <ezk@cs.sunysb.edu>
---
fs/unionfs/inode.c | 6 ++----
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/inode.c b/fs/unionfs/inode.c
index 37258c8..7ec9c1b 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/inode.c
@@ -851,7 +851,8 @@ out:
* nor do we need to revalidate it either. It is safe to not lock our
* dentry here, nor revalidate it, because unionfs_follow_link does not do
* anything (prior to calling ->readlink) which could become inconsistent
- * due to branch management.
+ * due to branch management. We also don't need to lock our super because
+ * this function isn't affected by branch-management.
*/
static void *unionfs_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
{
@@ -859,8 +860,6 @@ static void *unionfs_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
int len = PAGE_SIZE, err;
mm_segment_t old_fs;

- unionfs_read_lock(dentry->d_sb);
-
/* This is freed by the put_link method assuming a successful call. */
buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
if (unlikely(!buf)) {
@@ -885,7 +884,6 @@ static void *unionfs_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
out:
unionfs_check_dentry(dentry);
unionfs_check_nd(nd);
- unionfs_read_unlock(dentry->d_sb);
return ERR_PTR(err);
}

--
1.5.2.2


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-28 21:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans