From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp Subject: Re: [Ecryptfs-devel] [PATCH] ecryptfs: some inode attrs, and a question Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:03:12 +0900 Message-ID: <7210.1232172192@jrobl> References: <7471.1231827621@jrobl> <1231852628.6954.4.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <496FAFE2.8020102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9829.1232091366@jrobl> <1232125169.15209.19.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Cc: Tyler Hicks , linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs-devel@lists.launchpad.net To: Dave Kleikamp Return-path: Received: from vsmtp01.dti.ne.jp ([202.216.231.136]:38151 "EHLO vsmtp01.dti.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751833AbZAQGDU (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:03:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1232125169.15209.19.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Dave Kleikamp: > I think you're hitting on something here. I never understood the need > for the d_drop()s, but taking them out broke things. They probably are > just papering over bugs where the ecryptfs inode is not being properly > updated after changes are made to the lower inode. As long as cifs_hardlink() calls d_drop() for the target dentry (as the old version of NFS did), ecryptfs may have to call d_drop() too. But I believe the d_drop() for the source dentry is unnecessary, as long as the inode attributes are maintained correctly. Additionally, when the lower filesystem does NOT call d_drop(), ecryptfs has no necessary to call it. I'd like to suggest ecryptfs_link() to check it by d_unhashed(). J. R. Okajima