Re: symlinks and NWFS

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Fri May 12 2000 - 13:18:23 EDT

  • Next message: Forwarded SuSE Mail: "Re: sStrange behavior with Promise ud66 support in 2.2.15"

    On Fri, 12 May 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

    > I guess the real question here is how much serialization does the VFS
    > provide above you. I discovered last year in my initial forays with
    > Linux that parallelism is fully exposed to the file system. The locks

    ->i_sem ->i_zombie
    yes no lookup()
    yes yes readdir(),create(),mknod(),mkdir(),symlink()
    yes yes directory where create a link on link()
    yes yes directory where we remove a link on unlink()
    yes yes directory where we remove a link on rmdir()
    yes yes both parents on rename()
    no yes victim on rmdir()
    no yes target of rename() if it exists and is a directory

    > In the case of directories, the locks protect the block count. If the
    > VFS above provides serialization for changes to directory data, this
    > lock can be dropped.

            If you are interested in the contents - yes, all operations
    that change directory contents grab ->i_zombie on that directory. See the
    table above - your guarantees are there.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2000 - 13:34:54 EDT