[PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow
teheo at suse.de
Mon Jul 30 20:41:45 PDT 2007
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Ugh. I need to step back and carefully define what I'm seeing but it
> looks like the current sysfs locking is wrong.
> I'm starting to find little inconsistencies all over the place
> such as:
> Which lock actually protects sd->s_children?
> - It isn't sysfs_mutex. (see sysfs_lookup)
> - It isn't inode->i_mutex (we only get it if we happen to have the inode
> in core)
Yeah, I missed two places while converting to sysfs_mutex.
sysfs_lookup() and rename(). I'm about to post patch to fix it.
> At first glance sysfs_assoc_lock looks just as bad.
I think sysfs_assoc_lock is okay. It's tricky tho. Why do you think
More information about the Containers