>>>>> " " == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
> What's wrong with using the existing "revalidate" approach? I
> hate the notion of adding a special VFS layer call for
> something like this.
The following patch to path_walk() is the alternative that I presented
to Linux Fsdevel last summer as part of the first draft patch. It uses
the standard d_revalidate() & friends.
As I said, the reaction at the time was not too positive, but perhaps
opinions have changed?
Cheers,
Trond
diff -u --recursive --new-file linux-2.5.3-pre1/fs/namei.c linux-2.5.3-cto/fs/namei.c
--- linux-2.5.3-pre1/fs/namei.c Mon Jan 14 18:41:57 2002
+++ linux-2.5.3-cto/fs/namei.c Fri Jan 18 15:13:00 2002
@@ -457,7 +457,7 @@
while (*name=='/')
name++;
if (!*name)
- goto return_base;
+ goto return_reval;
inode = nd->dentry->d_inode;
if (current->link_count)
@@ -576,7 +576,7 @@
inode = nd->dentry->d_inode;
/* fallthrough */
case 1:
- goto return_base;
+ goto return_reval;
}
if (nd->dentry->d_op && nd->dentry->d_op->d_hash) {
err = nd->dentry->d_op->d_hash(nd->dentry, &this);
@@ -627,6 +627,19 @@
nd->last_type = LAST_DOT;
else if (this.len == 2 && this.name[1] == '.')
nd->last_type = LAST_DOTDOT;
+return_reval:
+ /*
+ * We bypassed the ordinary revalidation routines.
+ * Check the cached dentry for staleness.
+ */
+ dentry = nd->dentry;
+ if (dentry && dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) {
+ err = -ESTALE;
+ if (!dentry->d_op->d_revalidate(dentry, 0)) {
+ d_invalidate(dentry);
+ break;
+ }
+ }
return_base:
return 0;
out_dput:
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 23 2002 - 21:00:26 EST