>IMO it's a bad idea. In many cases we have ->permission() but it's
>perfectly OK with being called under dcache_lock - either always or
>in (fs-specific) "fast case".
>I would prefer ->permission_light() that would always be called
>under dcache_lock and besides the usual values could return -EAGAIN.
>In that case ->permission() would be called in a normal way.
OK - a few details/matters of taste:
- how about similar dcache_lock-safe versions of d_op->revalidate()
- an alternative to separate methods is to add a "noblock" argument
to the existing methods. This entails more breakage in the short term.
- permission_light() or permission_lite()? :-)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST