On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:19:17AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Eh... Arbitrary limitations are fun, aren't they?
>
> But these mounts _are_ special. There is really no point in moving or
> pivoting them.
pivoting - probably true, moving... why not?
> > What about MNT_SLAVE stuff being set up prior to that lookup?
>
> These mounts are not propagated. Or at least I hope so. Propagation
> stuff is a bit too complicated for my poor little brain.
Er... These mounts might not be propagated, but what about a bind
over another instance of such file in master tree?
> I think they should be the same superblock, same dentry. What would
> be the advantage of doing otherwise?
Then you are going to have interesting time with locking in final mntput().
BTW, what about having several links to the same file? You have i_mutex
on the inode, so serialization of those is not a problem, but...
> I think doing this recursively should be allowed. "Releasing last ref
> cleans up the mess" should work in that case.
Releasing the last reference will lead to cascade of umounts in that
case... IOW, need to be careful with locking.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
