[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070523073658.GO4095@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 08:36:58 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] file as directory
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:19:17AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Eh... Arbitrary limitations are fun, aren't they?
>
> But these mounts _are_ special. There is really no point in moving or
> pivoting them.
pivoting - probably true, moving... why not?
> > What about MNT_SLAVE stuff being set up prior to that lookup?
>
> These mounts are not propagated. Or at least I hope so. Propagation
> stuff is a bit too complicated for my poor little brain.
Er... These mounts might not be propagated, but what about a bind
over another instance of such file in master tree?
> I think they should be the same superblock, same dentry. What would
> be the advantage of doing otherwise?
Then you are going to have interesting time with locking in final mntput().
BTW, what about having several links to the same file? You have i_mutex
on the inode, so serialization of those is not a problem, but...
> I think doing this recursively should be allowed. "Releasing last ref
> cleans up the mess" should work in that case.
Releasing the last reference will lead to cascade of umounts in that
case... IOW, need to be careful with locking.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists