lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [WTF] ... is going on with current->fs->{root,mnt} accesses in pohmelfs
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:29:33AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 09:02:48PM +0000, Al Viro (viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk) wrote:
> > Which would be... ? E.g. between writepages() and rename(). What serializes
> > your write_inode_create() wrt renames? IOW, how can the server decide that
> > data from writepages() should go to the same object regardless of the
> > rename?
>
> rename and some other metadata operations as well as write itself
> request remote lock (if not grabbed already), acknowledge forces writeback to old path.

Um. You do realize that d_move() happens with none of your locks held,
right? It's done in vfs_rename_{other,dir}() and the only thing held
is s_vfs_rename_sem and i_mutex on parents. How could your code in
writeback be able to distinguish

rename() is done
d_move() has happened, we see new pathname in dcache

from

rename() is done
d_move() has not yet happened, we see old pathname in dcache

and generate the right on-the-wire traffic in both cases? Note that here
server has already seen rename request; as far as server and client are
concerned the rename() is over.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-11 04:05    [W:0.041 / U:9.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site