Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)

• Next message: Frank Cusack: "Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)"
• Previous message: Frank Cusack: "Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)"
• In reply to: Frank Cusack: "Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)"
• Next in thread: Trond Myklebust: "Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 07:32:43PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:

> But anyway you do agree that the one line fix is correct? You may have
> gotten thrown off track because of my somewhat broken description.

As far as I can see, it doesn't solve the real problem. E.g. it allows
you to create all sorts of fun for async-unlink code in NFS - the thing
pretty much assumes that victim dentry is not going anywhere.
-
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/

• Next message: Frank Cusack: "Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)"
• Previous message: Frank Cusack: "Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)"
• In reply to: Frank Cusack: "Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)"
• Next in thread: Trond Myklebust: "Re: [PATCH] nfs_unlink() race (was: nfs_refresh_inode: inode number mismatch)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:26 EST