From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/21] AUTOFS: Make sure all dentries refs are released before calling kill_anon_super() Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:23:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20060706202329.86429128.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060706145424.18779.55583.stgit@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060706151107.18779.20517.stgit@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060706185619.571cfc04.akpm@osdl.org> <1152242155.2922.27.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:43667 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751161AbWGGDXn (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:23:43 -0400 To: Ian Kent In-Reply-To: <1152242155.2922.27.camel@raven.themaw.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:15:55 +0800 Ian Kent wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 18:56 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:11:07 -0400 > > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > > From: David Howells > > > > > > Make sure all dentries refs are released before calling kill_anon_super() so > > > that the assumption that generic_shutdown_super() can completely destroy the > > > dentry tree for there will be no external references holds true. > > > > > > What was being done in the put_super() superblock op, is now done in the > > > kill_sb() filesystem op instead, prior to calling kill_anon_super(). > > > > > > This makes the struct autofs_sb_info::root member variable redundant (since > > > sb->s_root is still available), and so that is removed. The calls to > > > shrink_dcache_sb() are also removed since they're also redundant as > > > shrink_dcache_for_umount() will now be called after the cleanup routine. > > > > > > > AFAIK, Ian is still off thinking about this one? > > The patch looks fine to me but I wanted to give it a basic sanity test > before ACKing it. I haven't got to that yet partly because I wasn't sure > if the two patches from David would stand alone. Will they or will I > need to apply Davids whole patch set? I expect this patch is standalone, but it's not really useful or interesting to test it unless [21/21] is also applied, because the two patches will tend to stick together. Plus this one is supposed to fix a umount/shutdown-time BUG in the other. > Anyway, I'll have a go at it this afternoon. Thanks.