Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC PATCH] ocfs2: don't depend on DCACHE_DISCONNECTED

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 03:22:42AM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> 	So, I think you are right that we can't be relying on it *that*
> much, because splicing the alias doesn't clear it right away.  In other
> words, we rely on other mechanisms to ensure we have our lock attached
> when the dentry is reachable, but if we're dropping an unreachable
> dentry, we might not have the lock attached, and we need to detect that.
> 	So your original point, that the code "can't be right", is
> really that the code is overly permissive.  If we have a reachable tree
> with DISCONNECTED not yet cleared, that lock should be attached, but
> this check won't catch it.  That's fine.  We rely on other code.
> Conversely, we *know* we can get here with DISCONNECTED set from nfs or
> d_kill, and we don't want to print errors for a sane state.

OK, so we're depending on the DCACHE_DISCONNECTED check *only* to decide
whether to warn, and you don't mind missing some warnings as long as you
never warn when you shouldn't.  Makes sense, thanks!

--b.