bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[patch #1839] Many small fixes in dir-rename.c and dir-renamed.c


From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: [patch #1839] Many small fixes in dir-rename.c and dir-renamed.c
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:45:02 +0000
User-agent: w3m/0.5.2

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #1839 (project hurd):

What a mess, some of the fixes have independently found again.

dir-renamed.c:

        A lot of things that maybe make sense, a closer look is needed,
        but Ogi hasn't provided explanations.

dir-rename.c:

Now really serialize directory renaming with RENAMEDIRLOCK.

        I don't understand that part. In the debian report, Ogi says

        `if renamedirlock is held by somebody else, then no
        serialization will occur.'

        But if renamedirlock is held by somebody else, the code
        precisely takes the lock and starts over....

        Now, one flaw which may happen is if you have in parallel

        mkdir blip
                         mv blip blop
        rmdir blip
        touch blip
        or whatever that disturbs blip and makes diskfs_lookkup() fail
        or not be a directory any more, then we don't free the mutex...

When renaming directory, don't diskfs_node_update and
diskfs_file_update because dir-renamed.c::diskfs_rename_dir already
do it.

        possibly still useful, I haven't investigated.

When TONAME is .. of filesystem's root, not only set ERR to
EINVAL, but return this error.

        useless: it's precisely handled just below.

When EXCL is set and target exist, unlock things properly.

        useless for the same reason.

When FROMNAME is regular file and TONAME is directory, unlock TNP
before returning.
When maximum link count of FNP is reached and TNP is not NULL, unlock
TNP before returning.

        have been commited already.

When updating FNP after incrementing its link count, call
diskfs_node_update only if diskfs_synchronous.
After TONAME enters TDP, call diskfs_file_update instead of
diskfs_node_update.

        I haven't investigated.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?1839>

_______________________________________________
  Message posté via/par Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]