>>>>> " " == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
>> - hlist_del_rcu(&dentry->d_hash);
>> - hlist_add_head_rcu(&dentry->d_hash, target->d_bucket);
>> + if (!hlist_unhashed(&dentry->d_hash))
>> + hlist_del_rcu(&dentry->d_hash);
>> + if (!hlist_unhashed(&target->d_hash)) {
>> + hlist_add_head_rcu(&dentry->d_hash, target->d_bucket);
>> + dentry->d_vfs_flags &= ~DCACHE_UNHASHED;
>> + } else
>> + dentry->d_vfs_flags |= DCACHE_UNHASHED;
> Can source or target really be validly unhashed? That makes no
> sense, since we just looked it up, and we've held the directory
> semaphores over the whole thing.
When renaming, we may want to unhash the dentry in order to stop
d_lookup()s from succeeding (Recall that cached_lookup() does not
attempt to take the directory semaphore - only real_lookup() does
that).
AFAICS one should not rehash the dentry until after the d_move(). Does
that make sense?
Cheers,
Trond
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:30 EST