On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> * sysfs_move_dir() has an extra dput() on success path.
Are you sure? How did this ever work?
Also, looking at this, I think the "how did this ever work" question is
answered by "it didn't", but I also think there are still serious problems
there. Look at
again:
mutex_lock(&old_parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
if (!mutex_trylock(&new_parent->d_inode->i_mutex)) {
mutex_unlock(&old_parent->d_inode->i_mutex);
goto again;
}
and wonder what happen sif old_parent == new_parent. Is that trying to
avoid an ABBA deadlock? Normally you'd do it by ordering the locks, or by
taking a third lock to guarantee serialization at a higher level (ie the
"s_vfs_rename_mutex" on the VFS layer)
I'd like to apply these two patches, but I really want to get more of an
ack for them from somebody like Al, or at least more of an explanation for
why it's all the right thing.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
