public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Mell <sub.atomic.fusion@gmail.com>
To: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: move proc mount options out of pid_namespace
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 04:29:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <24900395.sMN6olMGRM@pegasus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <519ED883.9060903@cn.fujitsu.com>

Gu,

On Friday, May 24, 2013 11:03:31 Gu Zheng wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 05/24/2013 07:32 AM, Stephen Mell wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, May 23, 2013 18:20:57 Gu Zheng wrote:
> > 
> >> Here it'll create a new proc sb instance which holds the same context as the old ones
> >> each time we mount proc though in the same PID namespace, won't it?
> > I believe so. But this is the point, right? 

> Yes, but I think it's also the problem.
> 
> >They won't be identical if different mount options are used, I don't think.
> 
> If different mount options are used, we'll create different super block instance, and they have
> the same context, only the difference is each one holds different proc_sb_info.
> But I think what we really want is only one proc sb instance and create different proc_sb_info
> if different mount options are used.

Will having several different superblocks cause problems, or is it merely inefficient? I freely admit to not really knowing what I'm doing, and I thank you for your assistance.
How is this situation distinct from that of ramfs? It appears to have a superblock for each mount.
It would seem to me as though one cannot have different sb_infos with the same superblock, making storing the mount options in sb_info effectively the same as storing them in the superblock itself, for the purposes of this discussion. Where would the mount options be stored, if not in the superblock?

> > 
> >> Here the pre-check seems needless.
> > Is that new with my patch, or has it always been needless?
> 
> Yeah, it's always needless.
> 
> Thanks,
> Gu
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Stephen

Thanks again,
Stephen

  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-24  4:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-23  8:05 [PATCH] proc: move proc mount options out of pid_namespace Stephen Mell
2013-05-23 10:20 ` Gu Zheng
2013-05-23 23:32   ` Stephen Mell
2013-05-24  3:03     ` Gu Zheng
2013-05-24  4:29       ` Stephen Mell [this message]
2013-05-24  9:14         ` Gu Zheng
2013-05-24  9:35           ` Stephen Mell
2013-05-24 10:04             ` Gu Zheng
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-05-25  7:32 Stephen Mell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=24900395.sMN6olMGRM@pegasus \
    --to=sub.atomic.fusion@gmail.com \
    --cc=guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox