lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 09/33] fs: dcache scale dentry refcount
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:21:21AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 09:44 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 02:01:05PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:51 AM, <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > And yet in this case we do check for dentry->d_parent == dentry. (my
> > > unknowing self thinks we'd want to check in all places)
> >
> > I think you're right, I think we need checks there too...
> >
> > BTW Is there a way to test the fsnotify code? I thought inotify was
> > supposed to be implemented with fsnotify, but I see quite a lot
> > of duplicated (or very similar) code... We've also still got
> > inotify calls in fs/ (inotify_umount_inodes). and CONFIG_INOTIFY and
> > CONFIG_FSNOTIFY conditionals in there too. Would it be possible to
> > move that out into fsnotify calls? (fsnotify_inode_init_once or
> > whatever).
> >
> > (Sorry to hijack your good review comments :))
>
> Actually inotify.c in linux-next is dead code which I plan to remove
> in .32. In .31 inotify.c is used by the audit subsystem but inotify as
> seen by userspace is implemented on top of fsnotify.

Ah, fine. That explains why I had the check in fsnotify but not inotify.


> I'll try to pull down the whole patch series and test for any problems.

I guess I should make it available as a git tree or at least a
patch rollup. People have spotted a few problems and I've found
a few more in testing more filesystems, so maybe hold off testing
and I'll get something newer out soon. It would be very appreciated
though.

Thanks,
Nick



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-07 13:39    [W:0.040 / U:0.680 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site