[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1206348614.2961.21.camel@ram.us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:50:14 -0700
From: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/6] vfs: mountinfo stable peer group id
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 21:43 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:37:51PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> > > Argh... OK, I'll try to put something together tonight, after I get some
> > > sleep - 31 hours of uptime _suck_ ;-/
> >
> > Gosh, yes.
>
.....snip...
> Is there any reason why we do that in ->umount_begin() and not *after*
> it, unconditionally, straight from do_umount()? AFAICS, the only reason
> why it's done from fs-specific code is figuring out which mount-list
> should the stuff go back to, and that's both broken *and* not needed
> with sanitized locking as above. While we are at it, I'd rather return
> ->umount_begin() to its previous prototype, TYVM - the less filesystem
> sees vfsmounts, the better off we all are...
I think that ->umount_begin also acts a hook for providing pre-umount
event notification to userspace from filesystems; something that is
required by DMAPI interface.
RP
>
> Comments? If nobody objects, I'm going to do that in vfs-fixes branch
> and then push to Linus...
--
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