From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ram Pai Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/18] shared mount handling: bind and rbind Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:48:46 -0800 Message-ID: <1131464926.5400.234.camel@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Al Viro , torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:29918 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030217AbVKHPtG (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:49:06 -0500 To: Miklos Szeredi In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 06:11, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > static void attach_mnt(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct nameidata *nd) > > { > > - mnt->mnt_parent = mntget(nd->mnt); > > - mnt->mnt_mountpoint = dget(nd->dentry); > > - list_add(&mnt->mnt_hash, mount_hashtable + hash(nd->mnt, nd->dentry)); > > + mnt_set_mountpoint(nd->mnt, nd->dentry, mnt); > > + list_add_tail(&mnt->mnt_hash, mount_hashtable + > > + hash(nd->mnt, nd->dentry)); > > Ram, > > IIRC the list_add -> list_add_tail change has been voted down. Or do > you have new reasons why it's needed? No. As explained in the same earlier threads; without this change the behavior of shared-subtrees leads to inconsistency and confusion in some scenarios. Under the premise that no application should depend on this behavior (most-recent-mount-visible v/s top-most-mount-visible), Al Viro permitted this change. And this is certainly the right behavior. RP > > Miklos > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html