[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [git pull] dentry_unhash() breakage

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>