[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       autofs
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - use simple_empty() for empty directory check
From:       Ian Kent <ikent () redhat ! com>
Date:       2012-11-17 2:29:23
Message-ID: 1353119341.2338.1.camel () perseus ! themaw ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 17:34 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:43:28AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent <ikent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
> > > function that doesn't have the outer lock, and have simple_empty() call
> > > that, then use it in autofs?
> > 
> > Yup. That's the standard pattern, although usually we *strive* to make
> > the unlocked versions be static to the internal code, and then use
> > them there for the various helpers. In your case that seems
> > impossible, since you do depend on holding the d_lock in the caller
> > after the tests. But at least we don't have to duplicate the code and
> > have it in two unrelated places.
> > 
> > Al? Comments?
> 
> The thing is, I'm not convinced we really need ->d_lock held downstream.
> E.g.  __autofs4_add_expiring() ought to be OK with just sbi->lookup_lock.
> Not sure about the situation in autofs4_d_automount() - the thing is messy
> as hell ;-/
> 
> Ian, do we really need that __simple_empty() variant in either caller?  What
> is getting protected by ->d_lock after it and do we really need ->d_lock
> continuously held for that?

Yeah, I've thought about that a few times now but haven't gone so far as
to change it.

I'll have another look.

Ian


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]