> But I suspect that neither dentry nor target should really ever
> be unhashed by the time we call d_move(). That's reinforced by
> the fact that it looks like a unhashed dentry in d_move() would
> have been a silent bug previously - staying unhashed if it just
> shared the bucket.
It is not a bug.
Looking more carefully at the Oops, it seems that this problem is
occurring inside an nfs_rename() in which the target name belongs to
an open file - and thus needs to be sillyrenamed first.
In that case, we certainly do not want to rehash the dentry in order
to do the d_move() since that would give rise to a race: we want to do
a real rename into the same dentry after we're done with the
sillyrename.
I can agree that the patch was flawed, but I still believe that we do
need to allow d_move to work with unhashed dentries.
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/