At Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:02:09 -0800 (PST),
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Ahhh. This clears things up! Very nice debugging printfs. It makes
> it completely obvious.
>
> What is happening is that cache_resolve() is creating a child node
> under home at the same time cache_inval() is trying to invalidate it.
>
> Hmm. Ok. I think I might have been a bit overzelous in the retry code.
> It isn't actually necessary to re-destroy new associations created
> while cache_inval is recursing on the children. We only need to destroy
> the *old* associations. This means we can take just a single-pass
> through and get rid of the retry code entirely.
>
> The only place where it really matters is in cache_rename(), but that
> case can be handled in cache_rename() itself.
Actually, I was thinking that the retry may be unnecessary when I first
looked at cache_inval. I wasn't really sure about what all callers expected
though.
> I really appreciate the work you are doing, the new namecache code is
> the cornerstone of a great deal of already completed and up-and-coming
> VFS code and we have to make sure it works properly.
>
> Please try this patch.
>
Works great.
Thanks!
-Richard