[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101024200432.GA21376@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:04:32 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:17:35PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> * call in ext2_remount() is hogwash - we do that with at least
> root inode pinned down, so it will fail, along with the remount attempt.
And having it fail is a good thing. XIP mode means different file and
address_space operations, which we don't even try to deal with right
now. Not allowing transitions from/to it is the right thing.
> * smb reconnect logics. AFAICS, that's complete crap; we *never*
> retain inodes on smbfs. IOW, nothing for invalidate_inodes() to do, other
> than evict fsnotify marks. Which is to say, we are calling the wrong
> function there, even assuming that fsnotify should try to work there.
I don't think it should mess with fsnotify. fsnotify_unmount_inodes
assumes it's only called on umount right now, and sends umount
notifications to userspace (see my mail from a few days ago). So if
you split invalidate_inodes it really should only go into the umount
one.
--
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