From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] file as directory Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:24:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20070523102437.GS4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20070523095127.GQ4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:59718 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757394AbXEWKYj (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 06:24:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:09:19PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Right. After locking vfsmount_lock, mount_dironfile() should recheck > if there was a race and bail out. Owww... Not pretty, that... > I don't think the filesystem ought to try _creating_ a vfsmount. I > imagine, that the fs has already a kernel-internal mounted for this > kind of stuff, and it just supplies a dentry from that. The vfsmount > isn't actually important, but it should be readily available, and it's > easier to clone from a vfsmount/dentry pair. I don't get it. What's the point of that exercise, then? When do you create that kernel-internal mount? > As I said, the superblock should be persistent, so we'll get a stable > st_dev for multiple mounts. OK, but then I guess I don't understand the intended use.