On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 06:11, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > static void attach_mnt(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct nameidata *nd)
> > {
> > - mnt->mnt_parent = mntget(nd->mnt);
> > - mnt->mnt_mountpoint = dget(nd->dentry);
> > - list_add(&mnt->mnt_hash, mount_hashtable + hash(nd->mnt, nd->dentry));
> > + mnt_set_mountpoint(nd->mnt, nd->dentry, mnt);
> > + list_add_tail(&mnt->mnt_hash, mount_hashtable +
> > + hash(nd->mnt, nd->dentry));
>
> Ram,
>
> IIRC the list_add -> list_add_tail change has been voted down. Or do
> you have new reasons why it's needed?
No. As explained in the same earlier threads; without this change the
behavior of shared-subtrees leads to inconsistency and confusion in some
scenarios.
Under the premise that no application should depend on this behavior
(most-recent-mount-visible v/s top-most-mount-visible), Al Viro
permitted this change. And this is certainly the right behavior.
RP
>
> Miklos
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
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]
