Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:31:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:31:30 -0500 Received: from 216-42-72-144.ppp.netsville.net ([216.42.72.144]:37864 "EHLO tiny.suse.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:31:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [2.4] VFS locking problem during concurrent link/unlink From: Chris Mason To: Oleg Drokin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eazgwmir@umail.furryterror.org, viro@math.psu.edu, nikita@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030116140015.A17612@namesys.com> References: <20030116140015.A17612@namesys.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1042731580.31099.2195.camel@tiny.suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 Date: 16 Jan 2003 10:39:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 06:00, Oleg Drokin wrote: > Hello! > > Debugging reiserfs problem that can be demonstrated with script created by > Zygo Blaxell, I started to wonder if the problem presented is indeed reiserfs > fault and not VFS. > Though the Zygo claims script only produces problems on reiserfs, I am trying > it now myself on ext2 (which will take some time). > > Debugging shows that reiserfs_link is sometimes called for inodes whose > i_nlink is zero (and all corresponding data is deleted already). > So my current guess of what's going on is this: > No, this is a reiserfs bug, since we schedule after doing link checks in reiserfs_link and reiserfs_unlink. I sent a patch to reiserfs dev a while ago, I'll pull it out of the suse kernel and rediff against 2.4.20. -chris - 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/