From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10 v7] nfsd: Allows user un-mounting filesystem where nfsd exports base on Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 07:08:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20150713060802.GP17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <55A11010.6050005@gmail.com> <55A111A8.2040701@gmail.com> <20150713133934.6a4ef77d@noble> <20150713142059.493a790e@noble> <20150713044553.GN17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150713152133.571e0cb7@noble> <20150713160243.6173a214@noble> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kinglong Mee , "J. Bruce Fields" , "linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Trond Myklebust To: NeilBrown Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150713160243.6173a214@noble> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:02:43PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > I think that means we need a variant of pin_remove() which reports if > pin->done was 0 or -1. > If it was 0, then ->kill hasn't been called, and it won't be. So the > caller is free to clean up how it likes (providing RCU is used for > freeing). Grr... What will umount(2) wait for if it comes during your cleanup? You are putting them in the wrong order - pin_remove() is "I'm *DONE* killing that sucker, nothing to wait for", not "move along, don't wait for me, I've taken over killing it off". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html