* s_vfs_rename_sem and cifs (was Re: Possible deadlock in vfs layer, namei.c)
@ 2006-03-02 11:47 Alexey Dobriyan
2006-03-02 11:54 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Dobriyan @ 2006-03-02 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Al Viro; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:46:42PM -0800, Joshua Hudson wrote:
> from namei.c (function: lock_rename), rename takes:
> 1. s_vfs_rename_sem,
Speaking of s_vfs_rename_sem, does cifs usage of it despite explicit
warning at fs.h
was found to be legal?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: s_vfs_rename_sem and cifs (was Re: Possible deadlock in vfs layer, namei.c)
2006-03-02 11:47 s_vfs_rename_sem and cifs (was Re: Possible deadlock in vfs layer, namei.c) Alexey Dobriyan
@ 2006-03-02 11:54 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2006-03-02 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexey Dobriyan; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:47:50AM -0800, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:46:42PM -0800, Joshua Hudson wrote:
> > from namei.c (function: lock_rename), rename takes:
> > 1. s_vfs_rename_sem,
>
> Speaking of s_vfs_rename_sem, does cifs usage of it despite explicit
> warning at fs.h
> was found to be legal?
Legal as in "works until anything changes in VFS-internal locking".
Not legal as in "not promised to keep working".
Dumb in all respects.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-02 11:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-03-02 11:47 s_vfs_rename_sem and cifs (was Re: Possible deadlock in vfs layer, namei.c) Alexey Dobriyan
2006-03-02 11:54 ` Al Viro
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).