On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 14:50 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 12:24 -0400, Charles P. Wright wrote: > > I'll take a bite of the apple. I've committed your diff to the latest > > snapshot. > > Here's another patch on top of what you already applied. > > it attempts to wrap ever function that calls branchget/put within a > read_lock/read_unlock pair. > > look it over, I'm not so sure that I got the lock ordering right (vis a > vis w/ dentry locking). It seems OK.
> Is there any other functions that depend on the sb branch structure not > changing that would have to be wrapped? > Applied, but I changed the open locking in the error case, b/c otherwise we would end up with some double locking. Charles _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
