From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: Q: NFSD readdir in linux-2.6.28 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:53:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20090417225306.GO26366@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <8036.1237474444@jrobl> <1237475837.16359.106.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <8913.1237476890@jrobl> <1239960739.3428.33.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090417193233.GM26366@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1240006620.19059.41.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090417224350.GN26366@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp, hch@infradead.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" To: David Woodhouse Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090417224350.GN26366@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:43:50PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:17:00PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > It sounds like the better answer is to just make sure i_mutex is held > > when nfsd_buffered_readdir() calls back into the provided filldir > > function (we could do it in the various filldir functions themselves, > > _if_ they call lookup_one_len(), but I think I prefer it this way -- > > it's simpler). Patch below for comment. > > Umm... I can live with that, assuming that we don't have callbacks > that take i_mutex themselves. AFAICS, everything we call there is > either obviously not touching i_mutex or is already called while we > hold i_mutex elsewhere, but I'd appreciate if somebody actually > tested that sucker for different versions of protocol... BTW, why mess with taking i_mutex inside the inner loop and not immediately around it?