Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:32:49 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, adilger@sun.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: make real_lookup do dentry revalidation with
	i_mutex held
Message-ID: <20090319193249.GA23267@infradead.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903091118210.2773@cobra.newdream.net> <20090317081730.GA20213@infradead.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903170957560.18956@cobra.newdream.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903170957560.18956@cobra.newdream.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1112
Lines: 22

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:03:35AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Keeping i_mutes over do_revalidate seem fine from a first glance, but
> > can you please do it without rearranging the whole code?
> 
> Yeah, but not without an extra goto.  Holding i_mutex over revalidate is 
> only half of it... we also want to go ahead with the ->lookup if the 
> revalidate fails (instead of returning -ENOENT).  I make the patch easier 
> to read (with a goto), but I assumed we'd want the resulting code to be 
> more clear?

Well, if you want to re-organize real_lookup make that a separate patch.
Might actually be worthwile to do so and clean up the other issues
in there (too long line in the prototype, spaces after the pointer *,
too.  And then have a small patch ontop to implement the mutex and
going ahead with the lookup.

--
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/