- 22 Jul, 2012 19 commits
-
-
Artem Bityutskiy authored
We have the following pattern in 2 places in HFS if (!RDONLY) hfs_mdb_commit(); This patch pushes the RDONLY check down to 'hfs_mdb_commit()'. This will make the following patches a bit simpler. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Artem Bityutskiy authored
HFS calls 'hfs_write_super()' from 'hfs_put_super()' in order to write the MDB to the media. However, it is not needed because VFS calls '->sync_fs()' before calling '->put_super()' - so by the time we are in 'hfs_write_super()', the MDB is already synchronized. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Artem Bityutskiy authored
Stop using lock_super for serializing the MDB changes - use the buffer-head own lock instead. Tested with fsstress. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Artem Bityutskiy authored
HFS uses 'lock_super()'/'unlock_super()' around 'hfs_mdb_commit()' in order to serialize MDB (Master Directory Block) changes. Push it down to 'hfs_mdb_commit()' in order to simplify the code a bit. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Artem Bityutskiy authored
This patch makes hfsplus stop using the VFS '->write_super()' method along with the 's_dirt' superblock flag, because they are on their way out. The whole "superblock write-out" VFS infrastructure is served by the 'sync_supers()' kernel thread, which wakes up every 5 (by default) seconds and writes out all dirty superblocks using the '->write_super()' call-back. But the problem with this thread is that it wastes power by waking up the system every 5 seconds, even if there are no diry superblocks, or there are no client file-systems which would need this (e.g., btrfs does not use '->write_super()'). So we want to kill it completely and thus, we need to make file-systems to stop using the '->write_super()' VFS service, and then remove it together with the kernel thread. Tested using fsstress from the LTP project. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Artem Bityutskiy authored
This check is useless because we always have 'sb->s_fs_info' to be non-NULL. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Artem Bityutskiy authored
Print correct function name in the debugging print of the 'hfsplus_sync_fs()' function. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Artem Bityutskiy authored
... because it is used only in fs/hfsplus/super.c. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
recursion in __scm_destroy() will be cut by delaying final fput() Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
... and schedule_work() for interrupt/kernel_thread callers (and yes, now it *is* OK to call from interrupt). We are guaranteed that __fput() will be done before we return to userland (or exit). Note that for fput() from a kernel thread we get an async behaviour; it's almost always OK, but sometimes you might need to have __fput() completed before you do anything else. There are two mechanisms for that - a general barrier (flush_delayed_fput()) and explicit __fput_sync(). Both should be used with care (as was the case for fput() from kernel threads all along). See comments in fs/file_table.c for details. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
It doesn't matter on normal return to userland path (we'll recheck the NOTIFY_RESUME flag anyway), but in case of exit_task_work() we'll need that as soon as we get callbacks capable of triggering more task_work_add(). Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
... and get rid of PF_EXITING check in task_work_add(). Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
task_work and rcu_head are identical now; merge them (calling the result struct callback_head, rcu_head #define'd to it), kill separate allocation in security/keys since we can just use cred->rcu now. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
layout based on Oleg's suggestion; single-linked list, task->task_works points to the last element, forward pointer from said last element points to head. I'd still prefer much more regular scheme with two pointers in task_work, but... Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
get rid of the only user of ->data; this is _not_ the final variant - in the end we'll have task_work and rcu_head identical and just use cred->rcu, at which point the separate allocation will be gone completely. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
No need to bother with lookup_one_len() here - it's an overkill Signed-off-by Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
- 14 Jul, 2012 21 commits
-
-
David Howells authored
Split inode_permission() into inode- and superblock-dependent parts. This is aimed at unionmounts where the superblock from the upper layer has to be checked rather than the superblock from the lower layer as the upper layer may be writable, thus allowing an unwritable file from the lower layer to be copied up and modified. Original-author: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> (Further development) Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
David Howells authored
Pass mount flags to sget() so that it can use them in initialising a new superblock before the set function is called. They could also be passed to the compare function. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
David Howells authored
Add comments describing what the directions "up" and "down" mean and ref count handling to the VFS mount following family of functions. Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com> (Original author) Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
David Howells authored
copy_tree() can theoretically fail in a case other than ENOMEM, but always returns NULL which is interpreted by callers as -ENOMEM. Change it to return an explicit error. Also change clone_mnt() for consistency and because union mounts will add new error cases. Thanks to Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de> for a bug fix. [AV: folded braino fix by Dan Carpenter] Original-author: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Valerie Aurora <valerie.aurora@gmail.com> Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
David Howells authored
Make the chown() and lchown() syscalls jump to the fchownat() syscall with the appropriate extra arguments. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
we want to take it out of mark_files_ro() reach *before* we start checking if we ought to drop write access. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
mnt_drop_write_file() is safe under any lock Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Andrew Morton authored
Cc: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@opendz.org> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Christoph Hellwig authored
Add a helper that abstracts out the jump to an already parsed struct path from ->follow_link operation from procfs. Not only does this clean up the code by moving the two sides of this game into a single helper, but it also prepares for making struct nameidata private to namei.c Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Christoph Hellwig authored
Currently the non-nd_set_link based versions of ->follow_link are expected to do a path_put(&nd->path) on failure. This calling convention is unexpected, undocumented and doesn't match what the nd_set_link-based instances do. Move the path_put out of the only non-nd_set_link based ->follow_link instance into the caller. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
It, debugfs_create_dir() and debugfs_create_link() use the common helper now. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
same as for nfs et.al. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
a) ->d_iput() is wrong here - what we do to inode is completely usual, it's dentry->d_fsdata that we want to drop. Just use ->d_release(). b) switch to ->s_d_op - no need to play with d_set_d_op() Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
all callers want the same thing, actually - a kinda-sorta analog of kern_path_create(). I.e. they want parent vfsmount/dentry (with ->i_mutex held, to make sure the child dentry is still their child) + the child dentry. Signed-off-by Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
David Howells authored
Since commit 197e37d9, the banner comment on lookup_open() no longer matches what the function returns. It used to return a struct file pointer or NULL and now it returns an integer and is passed the struct file pointer it is to use amongst its arguments. Update the comment to reflect this. Also add a banner comment to atomic_open(). Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
all we want is a boolean flag, same as the method gets now Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
boolean "does it have to be exclusive?" flag is passed instead; Local filesystem should just ignore it - the object is guaranteed not to be there yet. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-
Al Viro authored
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-