From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932954Ab0JXUg0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:36:26 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:33720 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932793Ab0JXUgY (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:36:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:36:20 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock Message-ID: <20101024203620.GV19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1287622186-1935-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1287622186-1935-17-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101022015622.GE19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101022031431.GK12506@dastard> <20101022103705.GK19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101023213752.GR19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101024141310.GA21513@infradead.org> <20101024162131.GA23677@infradead.org> <20101024191735.GU19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101024200432.GA21376@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101024200432.GA21376@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 04:04:32PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Exactly. But that should be done without that ridiculous call to invalidate_inodes() - we should simply fail remount() and be done with that. > > * 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. No, I mean that it's not obvious that fsnotify clients can realistically work on smbfs in the first place. I.e. I suspect that fsnotify should refuse to set marks on that sucker.