From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org,
trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] must hold lock_super() to set initial mount writer
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 09:26:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1209659204.4461.65.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1Jr8ZK-0001uW-4s@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 11:25 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > We need lock_mnt_writers() during a remount in order
> > to keep mnt->__mnt_writers from changing so that we
> > get a consistent look at if a sb currently has anyone
> > writing to it.
> >
> > But, we need to lock writers out for an extended
> > period, even during the ->remount_fs() operation.
> > That's because we do conclusively make the fs
> > r/o until *after* the ->remount_fs().
>
> So? Why don't we mark the fs r/o _before_ calling ->remount_fs() and
> if that fails, just mark it r/w again.
>
> OK, we'll deny writes in that interval, but I don't see that as a big
> problem. And it would simplify the implementation considerably.
Personally, I think that's a bit messy. People might start getting
-EROFS when they never, ever *HAD* a r/o FS. They may have made a
request for one, but they never actually hard one.
I also understand what you're saying. If we were able to loosen up some
of the requirements it would certainly make the patches simpler. How
does everyone else feel about this?
-- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-01 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-29 18:59 [RFC][PATCH 0/5] do remounts without consulting sb->s_files list Dave Hansen
2008-04-29 18:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] r/o bind mounts: change spinlock to mutex Dave Hansen
2008-04-29 18:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] introduce simple_set_mnt_no_get() helper for NFS Dave Hansen
2008-04-29 21:34 ` Trond Myklebust
2008-04-30 1:46 ` Dave Hansen
2008-05-01 16:58 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-04-29 18:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] reintroduce list of vfsmounts over superblock Dave Hansen
2008-04-29 18:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] must hold lock_super() to set initial mount writer Dave Hansen
2008-04-30 9:25 ` Miklos Szeredi
2008-05-01 16:26 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2008-04-29 18:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] check mount writers at superblock remount Dave Hansen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1209659204.4461.65.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net \
--to=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).