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
next prev parent 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