Excerpts from Al Viro's message of 2011-03-21 01:17:25 -0400:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:58:13AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Thanks, these both look good but I'll test here as well. Are you
planning on pushing for .38?
No, but .39 would be nice ;-) Do you want that to go through btrfs
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:58:13AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Thanks, these both look good but I'll test here as well. Are you
planning on pushing for .38?
No, but .39 would be nice ;-) Do you want that to go through btrfs tree
or through vfs one?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Excerpts from Al Viro's message of 2011-03-04 12:13:53 -0500:
a) rename() plays with i_nlink of old_inode; bad, since it's not
locked. I'd add a variant of btrfs_unlink_inode() that would leave
btrfs_drop_nlink()/btrfs_update_inode() to callers and use it instead.
b) btrfs_link()
a) rename() plays with i_nlink of old_inode; bad, since it's not
locked. I'd add a variant of btrfs_unlink_inode() that would leave
btrfs_drop_nlink()/btrfs_update_inode() to callers and use it instead.
b) btrfs_link() doesn't check for i_nlink overflows. I don't
know if there's
