From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 14 06:08:30 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1CF1D16A4CF; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:08:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.syd.iprimus.net.au (smtp02.syd.iprimus.net.au
	[210.50.76.52])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9FF9843D9E; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:08:04 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au)
Received: from robbins.dropbear.id.au (210.50.42.227) by
	smtp02.syd.iprimus.net.au (7.0.020)
	id 3F8F522A019FF7BF; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:08:02 +1100
Received: by robbins.dropbear.id.au (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id AFCF94156; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:08:18 +1100 (EST)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:08:18 +1100
From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>
To: Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20040114140818.GA15471@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
References: <200401141308.i0ED8p7E039161@gw.catspoiler.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200401141308.i0ED8p7E039161@gw.catspoiler.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: simplifying linux_emul_convpath()
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:08:30 -0000

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:08:51AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:

> I just stumbled across a vnode locking violation in
> linux_emul_convpath().  Rather than locking and unlocking each vnode for
> the VOP_GETATTR() calls, is there any reason that this code should not
> be simplified to just compare the vnode pointers rather than fetching
> the vnode attributes and comparing the attributes for equality.

I'm having trouble convincing myself that comparing vnode pointers
would work with stackable filesystems. Then again, null_getattr()
changes va_fsid, so linux_emul_convpath() may not handle stacking
properly right now anyway.


Tim