On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 07:02:24AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > simple_recursive_removal() assumes that parent is not locked and > locks it when it finally gets to removing the victim itself. > Usually that's what we want, but there are places where the > parent is *already* locked and we need it to stay that way. > In those cases simple_recursive_removal() would, of course, > deadlock, so we have to play racy games with unlocking/relocking > the parent around the call or open-code the entire thing. > > A better solution is to provide a variant that expects to > be called with the parent already locked by the caller. > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
