From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27DDE5C96 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750159558; cv=none; b=sbmcatCsHrshstMlA/y0EdcsfDWwzktUVH4SO4iw5pxf4c4BEKnD+SgElWSMqbytN0JRgrfNTWuYpwqo8ZPHCbnqq2YcZXoFCuT6RXEber3+wneJIcbxpha97OR37Gfgr0j5Z/0SkBQclVRK9rdUT3LIgHKVl2jmwtnUtt/yMSA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750159558; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+XeXwpClvwadWY8wTnafxK7UzMaTRoGsX6kydqxhSvs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bdL0pIfu++sJz9OrcvlY1HEZCkMKWgfEoJJ2fQxow+ODARf95GKzzMMQDqwo78PeQEkzaipjUOpLs87rIThZg4mwDmGSFtBrIHdhgmmMTmmGrUvihF+eYJHubifL50zVOyfZef/V63B7TrPtsUUACSBskfpPfWcZ6eeScwzdns8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Tvh3alMJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Tvh3alMJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95F00C4CEED; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:25:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1750159557; bh=+XeXwpClvwadWY8wTnafxK7UzMaTRoGsX6kydqxhSvs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Tvh3alMJXlbJqBc+5EmXEasiXWwm9nTH+81v0nBTlXHEDWjib1kFrfiuT4Tn3O+6d gFUSvABZ7qgedHXEqbjo03S/D5psoVlefp/dJ3vVJTNZ/58sva224FBGPq8ELnNPuR 46taWr6s4XJ1owoNiFrIoJQK1r5I6F8lY9Db/CKTcHgubTwlH/1iM+X6cQtwHUtu5O IClNVpK7LoWwbQddyS6ch1K/TZO8aY5DcTiK5sQc9Cvg0hmS+kGZobf+vvyxJTnzkU gFUv4dM5UViGFlA+ZMT5/M/9K1ZPjdn62I7++yFuAB6QIj1lPDNv25pvT1mhvjA32M NnO5SCwLOOaNA== Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:25:53 +0200 From: Christian Brauner To: Al Viro Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, neil@brown.name, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] spufs: switch to locked_recursive_removal() Message-ID: <20250617-marode-zirkulation-a6ab03a96bf8@brauner> References: <20250614060050.GB1880847@ZenIV> <20250614060230.487463-1-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> <20250614060230.487463-3-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> <20250616-unsanft-gegolten-725b6c12e6c8@brauner> <20250616191458.GH1880847@ZenIV> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline 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 > > > --- > > > > 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.