From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:51350 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1031772AbeEZN4o (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 26 May 2018 09:56:44 -0400
Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id j4-v6so21156742wme.1
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Sat, 26 May 2018 06:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 16:56:40 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHES] reducing d_add() use, part 3 (procfs)
Message-ID: <20180526135640.GA12618@avx2>
References: <20180513212612.GV30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180525235326.GJ30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180526000302.GK30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180526130726.GA12809@avx2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180526130726.GA12809@avx2>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 04:07:26PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 01:03:02AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:53:26AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > ... and a lot more convoluted ones - procfs side.
> > I would really like an ACK/NAK from Alexey on that part...
> 
> Is /proc part self contained? This happens with 5 patches against mainline:
> 
> Welcome to Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)!
> 
> [    0.764706] systemd[1]: Failed to insert module 'autofs4'
> [    0.765357] systemd[1]: Failed to insert module 'ipv6'
> [    0.766047] systemd[1]: Set hostname to <debian88>.
> [    0.778266] random: systemd-sysv-ge: uninitialized urandom read (16 bytes read)
> [    0.785611] random: systemd: uninitialized urandom read (16 bytes read)
> [    0.790655] ------------[ cut here ]------------

Regardless, the broken patch is
"[PATCH 3/5] don't bother with tid_fd_revalidate() in lookups".