From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: How to handle non-local renames? Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:42:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20060928124247.GD29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <1158597517.6297.10.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1158883241.5535.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060928100223.GY29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> <1159446678.5439.23.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Miklos Szeredi , dhowells@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:22919 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751876AbWI1Mmt (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:42:49 -0400 To: Trond Myklebust Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1159446678.5439.23.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:31:18AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > We don't _care_ if lookup() is not from rename. That's OK. > > You can't assume that you can always kill the subdirectories: they may > be in use. Even if no actual processes are using them, I may have > submounts. So what? Actual processes will get -ESTALE and STFU, submounts can bloody well stay where they are; since we don't free dentries, WTF would VFS care? Mark inodes so that nothing would be done to those directories, unhash them and be done with it. umount -l will be able to take them out just fine afterwards. *Or* we could even try and play with detaching them (needed on invalidation anyway).