From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265724AbUGZVen (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:34:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265932AbUGZVen (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:34:43 -0400 Received: from brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM ([192.18.98.36]:56767 "EHLO brmea-mail-4.sun.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265724AbUGZVej (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:34:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:33:07 -0400 From: Mike Waychison Subject: Re: bug with multiple mounts of filesystems in 2.6 In-reply-to: <1090870651.6809.62.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> To: Trond Myklebust Cc: John S J Anderson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Herbert Poetzl Message-id: <41057893.1030006@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <86oem2hgv8.fsf@mendel.genehack.org> <1090870651.6809.62.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Trond Myklebust wrote: > På må , 26/07/2004 klokka 12:29, skreiv John S J Anderson: > >> Hi -- >> >> We're working on migrating to the 2.6 kernel series, and one big >> problem has popped up: we have a number of NFS mounts that are >> mounted read-only in one location and read-write in a distinct >> location (on the same machine). With 2.4 series kernels, this worked >> without issue, but with 2.6, it doesn't: it's not possible to mount >> the same filesystem twice with different options for each mount; the >> two mount points have to share the same mount options. > > > That behaviour is no longer supported as it meant that you would have > different superblocks (and hence different out-of-sync caches) between > the 2 mountpoint. It is in any case not a behaviour that is supported on > any other Linux filesystems. > How is this any different than having two seperate nfs clients accessing the same nfs export? > If you want readonly to be an exception, then you will have to move the > MS_RDONLY flag from being a superblock option to being a vfsmount > option, then propagate that vfsmount information down to all the tests > of IS_RDONLY(inode). Not a trivial task, and not one that looms high on > my list of priorities... > What ever happened to the bind ro patches that were floating around a couple months ago? (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=107932320200005&r=1&w=2) What is left in getting this done? Just the touch_file bit Viro commented on? - -- Mike Waychison Sun Microsystems, Inc. 1 (650) 352-5299 voice 1 (416) 202-8336 voice http://www.sun.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: The opinions expressed in this email are held by me, and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFBBXiTdQs4kOxk3/MRAp2CAJ9hLA43GX7breEAuFJp++noSX7hAQCYn7yw FXXelAMC/NCetjqwC8Q67g== =rQRx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----