From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] parse options in the vfs level Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:18:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20110802141806.GL2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1311947059-17209-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1311947059-17209-5-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20110731013456.GM5404@dastard> <4E37F5C6.8060908@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Pavel Emelyanov , Hugh Dickins , Nick Piggin , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel , Dave Hansen , James Bottomley To: Glauber Costa Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:58360 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752141Ab1HBOSR (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:18:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E37F5C6.8060908@parallels.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 10:04:06AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > I am not sure either, but I still believe my proposal is superior to > write-to-a-file specifically. Writing to a file, be it in proc, sys, > or wherever, leaves a window of opportunity open between mounting a > filesystem and limiting its caches. Doing it on mount is atomic. > > Effectively, I see this limit as a property of a particular instance > of a mounted filesystem. Since all properties of a filesystem are > specified during mount, this becomes a natural extension. The trouble is, dentry tree is fundamentally a property of superblock. It's shared between *all* instances of that fs in all mount trees...