From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [RFC] simplifying the "is it mounted" checks for nilfs2 Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 00:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20130705233335.GV4165@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20130705220309.GU4165@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130705220309.GU4165-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nilfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ryusuke Konishi Cc: linux-nilfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 11:03:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Do you see any problems with just giving nilfs ->drop_inode() instance > like this: > int nilfs2_drop_inode(struct inode *inode) > { > if (unlikely(inode->i_ino == NILFS_ROOT_INO)) > return true; > return generic_drop_inode(inode); > } > Then nilfs_root will live exactly until we unmount the damn thing, giving us ... except that it won't be enough ;-/ Nothing to kick dentries out on such ummount of a secondary. Oh, well... I still doubt that have_submounts() makes any sense there, but... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html