From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] sysfs: Basic support for multiple super blocks Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:45:00 +0900 Message-ID: <4BB994FC.1090106@kernel.org> References: <1269973889-25260-1-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <4BB2E098.7030202@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kay Sievers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cornelia Huck , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , Benjamin LaHaise , Serge Hallyn , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:56184 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102Ab0DEHpO (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2010 03:45:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, Eric. On 03/31/2010 02:51 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> I haven't looked at later patches but I suppose this is gonna be >> filled with more meaningful stuff later. > > Yes it will. > >> One (possibly silly) thing >> that stands out compared to get_sb_single() is missing remount >> handling. Is it intended? > > There is nothing for a remount to do so I ignore it. The only > thing that would possibly be meaningful is a read-only mount, > and nothing I know of sysfs suggests read-only mounts of sysfs > work, or make any sense. I see. Wouldn't it be better to make that design choice evident by stating the choice in the comment or at least in the patch description? As it currently stands, you're burying a clear functional change in a seemingly innocent patch which contains zero line of comment and two lines of description. The same pattern holds for this whole patchset. Where are the comments and descriptions about the design and implementation? :-( Thanks. -- tejun