Re: [PATCH 07/30] r/o bind mounts: stub functions

Andrew Morton
2008-02-16T01:12:21Z

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:00:30 -0500
Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 04:49:39PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 19:32 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:37:30PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch adds two function mnt_want_write() and mnt_drop_write().
> > > > These are used like a lock pair around and fs operations that might
> > > > cause a write to the filesystem.
> > >
> > > Argh, is there some reason why this couldn't have gotten merged in
> > > -rc1, ahead of the rest of the patch series? This one is going to
> > > cause more cross-tree merge pain with any filesystem tree that have
> > > changes to fs/*/ioctl.c.
> >
> > I wasn't meaning for this to hit the 2.6.25-rc series. We had some
> > review comments just when the merge window opened, and I was expecting
> > them to get stuck back in -mm for another round.
>
> Yeah, but it means that I need one set of patches for -mm, and another
> set of patches for Linus's mainline. I notice that your patchset is
> currently missing changes for fs/ext4/ioctl.c --- I think because you
> dropped them when Mingming picked them up, and then I dropped them
> when I was trying to prepare the set of patches to push to Linus.
>
> No problem, I'm sure I can ressurect them, but it's still the same
> basic problem that when there are patchsets such as yours which touch
> multiple trees in -mm, there are almost inevitably patch conflicts.
>
> It would be nice if an initial patch which introduces the new
> functionality you need for r/o bind mounts could get introduced into
> mainline *first*, and then people could add patches that call
> mnt_want_write(), et. al into their trees gradually.

Yes, I expect that merging a handful of do-nothing mnt_foo_write()
functions into mainline right now would ease life.

> otherwise akpm gets grumpy

itym "less than usually cheery"