Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixes for vfs-scale and vfs-automount

Al Viro
2011-02-24T03:15:02Z

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:03:38AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:

> I also have a sick feeling that dentrys may become negative at any point
> after __d_lookup_rcu() .....

Yes. To get stability of ->d_inode (assuming the sucker isn't pinned down
in normal way by ->d_count) you need ->d_lock.

> > Ho-hum... I can reach RHTS, but I'd rather do that at home boxen, if
> > possible... Has it been reproduced on UP boxen with SMP kernels, BTW?
>
> Nope, I'd need to build a kernel specifically for that. I'm not sure how
> useful that would be though since the test is specifically meant to
> expose problems with multiple concurrent processes accessing an
> automount tree. I don't see any problem running the Connectathon tests
> which is essentially one automount and one client process.

Heh... No, it's just that the only SMP box I have locally right now
is dual ultrasparc. Anyway, I can live with RHTS.