lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Important for fs devs: rcu-walk merged upstream
From
On Tuesday, January 11, 2011, J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Nick Piggin:
>> This is a big and complex change by any measure, so
>> please don't be afraid to ask for help or clarification. I'd
>> also really like to be able to update documentation
>> based on questions from fs maintainers (in and out of
>> tree) who are trying to follow it and bring their code up to
>> speed.
>
> Question about what d_lock protects.
> Can we skip d_lock when we access d_inode and d_name during its parent
> i_mutex is held?

That is a good observation. I think we are ok here because parent
mutex should stabilize children names and linkages.

But the documentation for a lot of locking is not complete. It would
be nice to improve.


> Should these BUG_ON be placed after d_lock?
>
> void dentry_update_name_case(struct dentry *dentry, struct qstr *name)
> {
>        BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dentry->d_inode->i_mutex));
>        BUG_ON(dentry->d_name.len != name->len); /* d_lookup gives this */
>
>        spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
>        :::
>
>
> J. R. Okajima
>
--
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: 2011-01-11 13:59    [W:0.139 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site