From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph fixes for 5.1-rc7 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:11:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20190426171115.GA2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20190425174739.27604-1-idryomov@gmail.com> <342ef35feb1110197108068d10e518742823a210.camel@kernel.org> <20190425200941.GW2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <86674e79e9f24e81feda75bc3c0dd4215604ffa5.camel@kernel.org> <20190426170108.GZ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Layton , Ilya Dryomov , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, Linux List Kernel Mailing List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:08:48AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:01 AM Al Viro wrote: > > > > What I don't understand is why would anyone want to mess with > > name snapshots for dentry_path() lookalikes... > > Talking about dentry_path()... Shouldn't the ceph path walking code > also check the mount_lock sequence to make sure the path is actually > stable? > > Maybe it doesn't matter. They want it relative to fs root - after all, server doesn't know or care what's mounted where on client...