From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] fs: mntput might sleep
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:03:44 +0000
Message-ID: <20100318190343.GY30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20100317132820.GH2869@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:45194 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751085Ab0CRTDp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:03:45 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100317132820.GH2869@laptop>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:28:20AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I missed this once or twice, so can we put might_sleep check into
> mntput?  Or does anyone call it from atomic context to drop a known
> not-last reference? (if so then maybe the caller could be rewritten).

There are places where it's called for known non-last reference under
interesting locks.  I'm not sure if vfsmount_lock is one of those, but...