| To: | Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [git pull] dentry_unhash() breakage |
| From: | Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 31 May 2011 18:33:48 +0100 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.64.1105310924040.25709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20110530020604.GC561@dastard> <20110530034741.GD561@dastard> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1105292057570.9134@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110530055601.GK11521@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110530085922.GA11336@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1105310924040.25709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 09:26:52AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote: > On Mon, 30 May 2011, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 06:56:01AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > A couple of dentry_unhash fallout fixes > > > > Shouldn't we do the shrink_dcache_parent only after a successfull > > rmdir or rename? > > Yeah, that makes more sense to me... No, it doesn't. Let's keep changes to minimum. I *really* don't want to audit autofs and hell knows how many other places for more or less subtle breakage caused by that. It's bad enough as it is... |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [git pull] dentry_unhash() breakage, Sage Weil |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [TRIVIAL PATCH next 13/15] fs: Convert vmalloc/memset to vzalloc, Alex Elder |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [git pull] dentry_unhash() breakage, Sage Weil |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [regression, 3.0-rc1] dentry cache growth during unlinks, XFS performance way down, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |