Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932966Ab2EWHWI (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2012 03:22:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44267 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932116Ab2EWHWH (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2012 03:22:07 -0400 Message-ID: <1337757721.2225.8.camel@perseus.themaw.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - fix get_next_positive_subdir() From: Ian Kent To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , autofs mailing list Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:22:01 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20120523024950.3905.89811.stgit@perseus.themaw.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1079 Lines: 29 On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 19:53 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kent wrote: > > > > The locking for the list traversal in get_next_positive_subdir() is > > wrong, so fix it. > > As an explanation, this kind of thing is totally useless. It doesn't > actually give any information at all. It's like saying "change > locking" > > What happened, and why? Why is the new nested spinlock ok and won't > deadlock against other nested users? Wazzup? It's good that you questioned this Linus. Looking again at dput() I think the traversal still isn't quite right. For a start the test for d_count 0 or positive and hashed can never be true since the point of the change was to take the d_lock of the d_subdirs dentry for the traversal. I'll need to work on this some more, thanks. Ian -- 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/