Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixes for vfs-scale and vfs-automount

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:03:38AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:

> I also have a sick feeling that dentrys may become negative at any point
> after __d_lookup_rcu() .....

Yes.  To get stability of ->d_inode (assuming the sucker isn't pinned down
in normal way by ->d_count) you need ->d_lock.

> > Ho-hum...  I can reach RHTS, but I'd rather do that at home boxen, if
> > possible...  Has it been reproduced on UP boxen with SMP kernels, BTW?
> 
> Nope, I'd need to build a kernel specifically for that. I'm not sure how
> useful that would be though since the test is specifically meant to
> expose problems with multiple concurrent processes accessing an
> automount tree. I don't see any problem running the Connectathon tests
> which is essentially one automount and one client process.

Heh...  No, it's just that the only SMP box I have locally right now
is dual ultrasparc.  Anyway, I can live with RHTS.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/