From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ram Pai Subject: Re: [patch 3/6] vfs: mountinfo stable peer group id Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:50:14 -0700 Message-ID: <1206348614.2961.21.camel@ram.us.ibm.com> References: <20080313212641.989467982@szeredi.hu> <20080313212735.741834181@szeredi.hu> <20080319114844.GK10722@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080319182005.GP10722@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080320214319.GS10722@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Miklos Szeredi , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, dhowells@redhat.com To: Al Viro Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080320214319.GS10722@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 21:43 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:37:51PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > Argh... OK, I'll try to put something together tonight, after I get some > > > sleep - 31 hours of uptime _suck_ ;-/ > > > > Gosh, yes. > .....snip... > Is there any reason why we do that in ->umount_begin() and not *after* > it, unconditionally, straight from do_umount()? AFAICS, the only reason > why it's done from fs-specific code is figuring out which mount-list > should the stuff go back to, and that's both broken *and* not needed > with sanitized locking as above. While we are at it, I'd rather return > ->umount_begin() to its previous prototype, TYVM - the less filesystem > sees vfsmounts, the better off we all are... I think that ->umount_begin also acts a hook for providing pre-umount event notification to userspace from filesystems; something that is required by DMAPI interface. RP > > Comments? If nobody objects, I'm going to do that in vfs-fixes branch > and then push to Linus...