[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091109141439.GA10927@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:14:39 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] sysfs: Propagate renames to the vfs on demand
Quoting Tejun Heo (tj@...nel.org):
> Hello,
>
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > It isn't what I want but it is what the VFS requires. If let the vfs
> > continue on it's delusional state we will leak the vfs mount and
> > everything mounted on top of it, with no way to remove the mounts.
>
> This is caused by not having any way to prevent deletion on
> directories with submounts, right? How does other distributed
> filesystems deal with directories with submounts going away underneath
> it?
Ooooh. I see, I was thinking only about the rename case, and forgot
this was the path for deleted files, too. For the rename case it
should be ok to let the dentry be put since the submounts will be
accessible at the new location, right? Should that be handled
separately?
-serge
--
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