Re: [PATCH] fuse: fix conversion of fuse_reverse_inval_entry() to start_removing()

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 07:50:43PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:

> Why was the original code locking the parent inode?  Whatever that was
> protecting, we need to keep protecting it.  That is what
> start_removing_dentry() is there to do.

We need to find out what it's protecting, rather than cargo-culting it
indefinitely.  If nothing else, it's a place with uncommon use of
inode_lock; we need to know which properties of current locking
scheme does it expect there.  Thus the question to Miklos...