@@ -768,15 +768,7 @@ static inline bool fast_dput(struct dentry *dentry)
unsigned int d_flags;
/*
- * If we have a d_op->d_delete() operation, we sould not
- * let the dentry count go to zero, so use "put_or_lock".
- */
- if (unlikely(dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_OP_DELETE))
- return lockref_put_or_lock(&dentry->d_lockref);
-
- /*
- * .. otherwise, we can try to just decrement the
- * lockref optimistically.
+ * try to decrement the lockref optimistically.
*/
ret = lockref_put_return(&dentry->d_lockref);
@@ -830,7 +822,7 @@ static inline bool fast_dput(struct dentry *dentry)
*/
smp_rmb();
d_flags = READ_ONCE(dentry->d_flags);
- d_flags &= DCACHE_REFERENCED | DCACHE_LRU_LIST |
+ d_flags &= DCACHE_REFERENCED | DCACHE_LRU_LIST | DCACHE_OP_DELETE |
DCACHE_DISCONNECTED | DCACHE_DONTCACHE;
/* Nothing to do? Dropping the reference was all we needed? */
->d_delete() is a way for filesystem to tell that dentry is not worth keeping cached. It is not guaranteed to be called every time a dentry has refcount drop down to zero; it is not guaranteed to be called before dentry gets evicted. In other words, it is not suitable for any kind of keeping track of dentry state. None of the in-tree filesystems attempt to use it that way, fortunately. So the contortions done by fast_dput() (as well as dentry_kill()) are not warranted. fast_dput() certainly should treat having ->d_delete() instance as "can't assume we'll be keeping it", but that's not different from the way we treat e.g. DCACHE_DONTCACHE (which is rather similar to making ->d_delete() returns true when called). Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> --- fs/dcache.c | 12 ++---------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)