From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 4.7-rc1
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 18:22:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160529172213.GY14480@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzJn7PzgmzwSH4w8qYspTr9BvjAPn5dQMdbJssri-4BDg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 10:00:25AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, enough blathering. Go out and test. And in particular, if
> you're a low-level filesystem person, or involved in other ways in
> path component lookup (security layer etc), go check that everything
> looks ok, and if your filesystem isn't one that does parallel lookups
> or readdirs yet (because locking issues), take a look at that too.
Um... Unlike readdir, which is an opt-in precisely because more state
is involved, lookups are *not* - they are not even opt-out. They are
done in parallel with each other, period. Out-of-tree filesystems will
need to audit their ->lookup() instances, of course, but everything
in-tree should be finished in that respect.
lookup/lookup has only one kind of exclusion - no lookups on the same name
in the same directory happening in parallel. lookup/(directory modifiers) is
still there, of course. So is readdir/modifiers and modifiers/modifiers.
What is fs-dependent (for now) is lookup/readdir and readdir/readdir.
The latter has per-struct-file exclusion in all cases; if we are using
->iterate_shared(), that's all there is. If ->iterate() is still being
used, we get lookup/readdir and readdir/readdir exclusion, as we used to.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-29 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-29 17:00 Linux 4.7-rc1 Linus Torvalds
2016-05-29 17:22 ` Al Viro [this message]
2016-05-30 0:46 ` linux-next: stats (Was: Linux 4.7-rc1) Stephen Rothwell
2016-06-03 5:34 ` Let me know about regressions in 4.7 (was: " Thorsten Leemhuis
2016-06-19 21:13 ` Pavel Machek
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=20160529172213.GY14480@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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