From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@gmail.com>
Subject: Q: spin_unlock(dentry) after lock_parent(dentry)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 23:36:55 +0900
Message-ID: <23341.1401806215@jrobl>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail01-md.ns.itscom.net ([175.177.155.111]:59608 "EHLO
	mail01-md.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753738AbaFCOg5 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:36:57 -0400
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>


Hello Al Viro,

I have a question about spin_unlock(dentry) after lock_parent(dentry).
In lock_parent(dentry), spin_unlock(dentry) is called. And
spin_lock(dentry) is called again when (parent != dentry) is
true. Otherwise, dentry left spin_unlock-ed and lock_parent() returns
NULL.

Even in the case of lock_parent() returns NULL, shrink_dentry_list()
calls spin_unlock(dentry). Is it balanced and correct?


J. R. Okajima