From 86c1155a95496d0ae0a0c9ec719e0b842e91a38a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Erez Zadok Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:40:23 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Unionfs: remove unnecessary locking in follow-link Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok --- fs/unionfs/inode.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/unionfs/inode.c b/fs/unionfs/inode.c index 37258c82049..7ec9c1b7647 100644 --- a/fs/unionfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/unionfs/inode.c @@ -851,7 +851,8 @@ out: * nor do we need to revalidate it either. It is safe to not lock our * dentry here, nor revalidate it, because unionfs_follow_link does not do * anything (prior to calling ->readlink) which could become inconsistent - * due to branch management. + * due to branch management. We also don't need to lock our super because + * this function isn't affected by branch-management. */ static void *unionfs_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd) { @@ -859,8 +860,6 @@ static void *unionfs_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd) int len = PAGE_SIZE, err; mm_segment_t old_fs; - unionfs_read_lock(dentry->d_sb); - /* This is freed by the put_link method assuming a successful call. */ buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL); if (unlikely(!buf)) { @@ -885,7 +884,6 @@ static void *unionfs_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd) out: unionfs_check_dentry(dentry); unionfs_check_nd(nd); - unionfs_read_unlock(dentry->d_sb); return ERR_PTR(err); } -- 2.43.0