On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:41:58PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted text
> and wonder what happen sif old_parent == new_parent. Is that trying to 
> avoid an ABBA deadlock? Normally you'd do it by ordering the locks, or by 
> taking a third lock to guarantee serialization at a higher level (ie the 
> "s_vfs_rename_mutex" on the VFS layer)
> 
> I'd like to apply these two patches, but I really want to get more of an 
> ack for them from somebody like Al, or at least more of an explanation for 
> why it's all the right thing.

No ACK is coming until we get something resembling analysis of locking
scheme.  Which won't happen until we at least get the "what callers are
allowed to do" written down, damnit.  As it is, I'm more than inclined
to propose ripping kobject_move() out, especially since it has only two
users - something s390-specific and rfcomm, with its shitloads of problems
beyond just sysfs interaction.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/