On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 21:03 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> >
> > I think the name fsnotify_inoderemove is causing some confusion. We only
> > care that some name that is pointing to this inode has been deleted.
> > Remember, it was suggested as a replacement for fsnotify_unlink. We
> > don't care if the inode is actually going away or not.
>
> Ahh.
>
> Well, the problem is one of ordering. You could do it unconditionally at
> the top of d_delete(). If that's ok, then good.
>
> The problem with that is that the name will still be available for a while
> afterwards - another process could look it up on another CPU.
>
> And the _name_ won't be gone until after we've already dropped the inode.
> Remember? You got oopses because you were trying to access an inode that
> simply didn't exist any more..
>
> That's where "dentry_iput()" comes in. It's after you've removed the name,
> but before the inode is gone. However, then you do end up having the
> problem that you can't tell a delete from a "drop the dcache entry" any
> more.
Yep, that sums it up. The new patch looks good, I will have it tested.
--
John McCutchan <[email protected]>
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |