From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, neil@brown.name,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] spufs: switch to locked_recursive_removal()
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:25:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250617-marode-zirkulation-a6ab03a96bf8@brauner> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250616191458.GH1880847@ZenIV>
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 08:14:58PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 04:40:14PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 07:02:25AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > ... and fix an old deadlock on spufs_mkdir() failures to populate
> > > subdirectory - spufs_rmdir() had always been taking lock on the
> > > victim, so doing it while the victim is locked is a bad idea.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > > ---
> >
> > Fwiw, I think simple_recursive_removal_locked() might be better.
> > It's longer and arguably uglier but it clearer communicates that its the
> > same helper as simple_recursive_removal() just with the assumption that
> > the caller already holds the lock.
>
> Not sure... TBH, I'm somewhat tempted to rename simple_recursive_removal()
> to simple_remove()...
Sounds good.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-17 11:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-14 6:00 [PATCHES][RFC][CFT] simple_recursive_removal() work Al Viro
2025-06-14 6:02 ` [PATCH 1/8] simple_recursive_removal(): saner interaction with fsnotify Al Viro
2025-06-14 6:02 ` [PATCH 2/8] add locked_recursive_removal() Al Viro
2025-06-16 14:38 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-14 6:02 ` [PATCH 3/8] spufs: switch to locked_recursive_removal() Al Viro
2025-06-16 14:40 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-16 19:14 ` Al Viro
2025-06-17 11:25 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2025-06-14 6:02 ` [PATCH 4/8] binfmt_misc: " Al Viro
2025-06-16 14:43 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-16 19:17 ` Al Viro
2025-06-14 6:02 ` [PATCH 5/8] pstore: " Al Viro
2025-06-16 14:43 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-14 6:02 ` [PATCH 6/8] fuse_ctl: use simple_recursive_removal() Al Viro
2025-06-16 14:44 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-14 6:02 ` [PATCH 7/8] kill binderfs_remove_file() Al Viro
2025-06-16 14:45 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-14 6:02 ` [PATCH 8/8] functionfs, gadgetfs: use simple_recursive_removal() Al Viro
2025-06-16 14:46 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-16 14:34 ` [PATCH 1/8] simple_recursive_removal(): saner interaction with fsnotify Christian Brauner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250617-marode-zirkulation-a6ab03a96bf8@brauner \
--to=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neil@brown.name \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox