Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: More parallel atomic_open/d_splice_alias fun with NFS and possibly more FSes. | From | Oleg Drokin <> | Date | Tue, 5 Jul 2016 23:25:46 -0400 |
| |
On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:20 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 08:29:37PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote: >>> + /* Otherwise we just unhash it to be rehashed afresh via >>> + * lookup if necessary >>> + */ >>> + d_drop(dentry); >> >> So we can even drop this part and retain the top condition as it was. >> d_add does not care if the dentry we are feeding it was hashed or not, >> so do you see any downsides to doing that I wonder? > > d_add() on hashed dentry will end up reaching this: > static void __d_rehash(struct dentry * entry, struct hlist_bl_head *b) > { > BUG_ON(!d_unhashed(entry));
Ah, ok. Yes, I remember about it now from the older issue with nfs.
It's still puzzling why I did not hit it yet, but oh well.
I wonder if handling of negative dentries broke… Time for more investigations.
| |