From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: take i_mutex on renamed file Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:07:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20120410130721.GA18465@fieldses.org> References: <20120305223847.GA16444@fieldses.org> <20120305224334.GB16444@fieldses.org> <20120309222114.GA22423@fieldses.org> <20120320192712.GA1431@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:47554 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752647Ab2DJNHY (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:07:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120320192712.GA1431@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:27:12PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > What are the chances of getting this reviewed for this merge cycle? Is > it on somebody's list? > > If it would make it any simpler: the one that I think absolutely must get wider > review, and get merged through Al's tree, is "vfs: take i_mutex on renamed > file". > > There aren't actually any dependencies between that and the rest; Based on discussion at LSF, and absent any objections, I'm leaving "vfs: take i_mutex on renamed file" for Al to take, and merging the rest through the nfsd tree for 3.5. (Al, assuming that's the correct thing to do, should I add an acked-by/reviewed-by for you to the patches I merge?) --b. > and > the rest is mainly in nfsd/ and locks.c (changes to which have mostly > been going through my tree anyway, I think); other than that: > > fs/attr.c | 3 ++ > fs/namei.c | 18 +++++++++++++- > > straightforward changes that tend to look like: > > + error = break_deleg(inode, O_WRONLY); > + if (error) > + return error; > > include/linux/fs.h | 19 +++++++++++++-- > > and some definitions. > > --b.