From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762056AbYD2UTo (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:19:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755526AbYD2UTc (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:19:32 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:57660 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752655AbYD2UTb (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:19:31 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Greg KH , Benjamin Thery , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Tejun Heo , Daniel Lezcano , Pavel Emelyanov , netdev@vger.kernel.org References: <20080429171015.473938697@theryb.frec.bull.fr> <20080429173621.GA16625@suse.de> <20080429180445.GA18110@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20080429184151.GA19794@suse.de> <20080429193417.GA19282@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:10:06 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20080429193417.GA19282@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> (Serge E. Hallyn's message of "Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:34:17 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 24.130.11.59 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] sysfs tagged directories X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mgr1.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Serge E. Hallyn" writes: > Ah I see it, thanks. Serge thanks for your productive and detailed reply to this. > The last question of Al's which went unanswered was > >> Excuse me, _what_? Are you seriously suggesting going through all dentry >> trees, doing d_move() in each? I want to see your locking. It's promising >> to be worse than devfs had ever been. Much worse. > > I think this is answered in patch 4. So yeah, it does d_move() in each > sysfs mount. It's all done under the sysfs_rename_mutex. Judging by > the phrasing of the question, is that not acceptable? We also have to call sysfs_grab_supers to ensure none of the superblocks we know about will go away during the rename. I believe that is the only locking change from the current code. Eric