Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock

Al Viro
2010-10-24T20:36:26Z

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 04:04:32PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:17:35PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > * call in ext2_remount() is hogwash - we do that with at least
> > root inode pinned down, so it will fail, along with the remount attempt.
>
> And having it fail is a good thing. XIP mode means different file and
> address_space operations, which we don't even try to deal with right
> now. Not allowing transitions from/to it is the right thing.

Exactly. But that should be done without that ridiculous call to
invalidate_inodes() - we should simply fail remount() and be done
with that.

> > * smb reconnect logics. AFAICS, that's complete crap; we *never*
> > retain inodes on smbfs. IOW, nothing for invalidate_inodes() to do, other
> > than evict fsnotify marks. Which is to say, we are calling the wrong
> > function there, even assuming that fsnotify should try to work there.
>
> I don't think it should mess with fsnotify. fsnotify_unmount_inodes
> assumes it's only called on umount right now, and sends umount
> notifications to userspace (see my mail from a few days ago). So if
> you split invalidate_inodes it really should only go into the umount
> one.

No, I mean that it's not obvious that fsnotify clients can realistically
work on smbfs in the first place. I.e. I suspect that fsnotify should
refuse to set marks on that sucker.