Re: [PATCH v4 07/14] VFS: introduce start_removing_dentry()
Al Viro <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.ecryptfs,dev.linux.lists.netfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-cifs,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module,org.kernel.vger.linux-unionfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs,org.kernel.vger.selinux |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20251030061159.GV2441659@ZenIV> |
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:31:07AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> @@ -428,11 +429,14 @@ static bool cachefiles_invalidate_cookie(struct fscache_cookie *cookie)
> if (!old_tmpfile) {
> struct cachefiles_volume *volume = object->volume;
> struct dentry *fan = volume->fanout[(u8)cookie->key_hash];
> -
> - inode_lock_nested(d_inode(fan), I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> - cachefiles_bury_object(volume->cache, object, fan,
> - old_file->f_path.dentry,
> - FSCACHE_OBJECT_INVALIDATED);
> + struct dentry *obj;
> +
> + obj = start_removing_dentry(fan, old_file->f_path.dentry);
> + if (!IS_ERR(obj))
> + cachefiles_bury_object(volume->cache, object,
> + fan, obj,
> + FSCACHE_OBJECT_INVALIDATED);
> + end_removing(obj);
Huh? Where did you change cachefiles_bury_object to *not* unlock the parent?
Not in this commit, AFAICS, and that means at least a bisection hazard around
here...
Confused...