From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:04:32 -0400 Message-ID: <20101024200432.GA21376@infradead.org> References: <1287622186-1935-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1287622186-1935-17-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101022015622.GE19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101022031431.GK12506@dastard> <20101022103705.GK19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101023213752.GR19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101024141310.GA21513@infradead.org> <20101024162131.GA23677@infradead.org> <20101024191735.GU19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101024191735.GU19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:17:35PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > * call in ext2_remount() is hogwash - we do that with at least > root inode pinned down, so it will fail, along with the remount attempt. And having it fail is a good thing. XIP mode means different file and address_space operations, which we don't even try to deal with right now. Not allowing transitions from/to it is the right thing. > * smb reconnect logics. AFAICS, that's complete crap; we *never* > retain inodes on smbfs. IOW, nothing for invalidate_inodes() to do, other > than evict fsnotify marks. Which is to say, we are calling the wrong > function there, even assuming that fsnotify should try to work there. I don't think it should mess with fsnotify. fsnotify_unmount_inodes assumes it's only called on umount right now, and sends umount notifications to userspace (see my mail from a few days ago). So if you split invalidate_inodes it really should only go into the umount one.