From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: yushang <yusunn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: a question about clone_mnt in namespace.c
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:03:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHHgPePqWfnkPuvh0VrZDknb9Hj2sB_T9Y8XMV3rFNks90beug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHHgPeMOcgg6f8xzknxSDksbgJ2XuMoaVzot3Xur2-UjmveQ-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120622092924.GC14083@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-gh0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:48012 "EHLO
	mail-gh0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751666Ab2GACDM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:03:12 -0400
Received: by ghrr11 with SMTP id r11so3569348ghr.19
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120622092924.GC14083@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Thanks for reply. I think mnt_slave and mnt_master are integrity parts
of master/slave semantics and put the 2 lines together will make the
logic clearer.
Many thanks.

2012/6/22 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:54:00AM +0800, yushang wrote:
>> Hi dear all,
>> I have a question about the mnt_master logic in clone_mnt , look at
>> following lines:
>> ...
>> } else if (!(flag & CL_PRIVATE)) {
>>   if ((flag & CL_MAKE_SHARED) || IS_MNT_SHARED(old))
>>       list_add(&mnt->mnt_share, &old->mnt_share);
>>   if (IS_MNT_SLAVE(old))
>>       list_add(&mnt->mnt_slave, &old->mnt_slave);
>>     mnt->mnt_master = old->mnt_master;
>> }
>> ...
>> I think the following lines are equivalent, right ? or I've missed
>> something ? many thanks!
>> ...
>> } else if (!(flag & CL_PRIVATE)) {
>>   if ((flag & CL_MAKE_SHARED) || IS_MNT_SHARED(old))
>>       list_add(&mnt->mnt_share, &old->mnt_share);
>>   if (IS_MNT_SLAVE(old)) {
>>       list_add(&mnt->mnt_slave, &old->mnt_slave);
>>         mnt->mnt_master = old->mnt_master;
>>   }
>> }
>
> Yes; we are guaranteed that mnt->master is NULL after alloc_vfsmnt(),
> so that would be an equivalent transformation.  Matter of taste,
> mostly - performance win is negligible and IMO your variant is
> slightly less explicit.