| Message ID | 1246255542.905239.683352016991.1.gpush@pingu |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h b/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h index 44848aa..6c3de99 100644 --- a/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h +++ b/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static inline void __fsnotify_update_dcache_flags(struct dentry *dentry) assert_spin_locked(&dentry->d_lock); parent = dentry->d_parent; - if (fsnotify_inode_watches_children(parent->d_inode)) + if (parent->d_inode && fsnotify_inode_watches_children(parent->d_inode)) dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_FSNOTIFY_PARENT_WATCHED; else dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_FSNOTIFY_PARENT_WATCHED;
The new fsnotify infrastructure (starting at 90586523) causes an oops in spufs, where we populate a directory with files before instantiating the directory itself. The new changes seem to have introduced an assumption that a dentry's parent will be positive when instantiating. This change makes it once again possible to d_instantiate a dentry with a negative parent, and brings __fsnotify_d_instantiate() into line with inotify_d_instantiate(), which already has this NULL check. Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org> --- Eric - is this going to work with fsnotify? --- include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)