[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140813131831.GY18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:18:31 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Detaching mounts on unlink for 3.15
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:17:10AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I have rebased my changes against vfs.git#for-eric and my changes work
> just fine on top of the base you have built. The changes are avaiable
> in user-namespace.git#vfs-detach-mounts10 so you just be able to just
> pull the changes in.
>
> Reading your pile #1 pull request to Linus it sounds like you are
> planning to suck all of this into the vfs tree.
I am. Questions:
* is there any reason why we need list instead of hlist for
per-mountpoint list of mounts? Looks like hlist would do just as
well, and it's a bit less noise
* __d_unalias() change looks rather odd. What we do there
is _not_ "avoid leaking mounts", it's "don't get a bunch of existing
mounts suddenly relocate". What's up with that 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