Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:33:10 +0800 (WST) | From | raven@themaw ... | Subject | Re: 2.6.6-rc2-mm1 |
| |
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:32:39PM +0800, raven@themaw.net wrote: > > +static int __may_umount_tree(struct vfsmount *mnt, int root_mnt_only) > > +{ > > + struct list_head *next; > > + struct vfsmount *this_parent = mnt; > > + int actual_refs; > > + int minimum_refs; > > + > > + spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock); > > + actual_refs = atomic_read(&mnt->mnt_count); > > + minimum_refs = 2; > > + > > + if (root_mnt_only) { > > + spin_unlock(&vfsmount_lock); > > + if (actual_refs > minimum_refs) > > + return -EBUSY; > > + return 0; > > Sorry for changing my opionin, but I somehow thought autofs3 could make > more use of this function. it it's really just a single atomic_read that's > shared it doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it? >
That's right.
autofs3 requires it to behave as per the little description I put in.
So is the first version what we want? Should I do a patch which reverts it or should I do a new patch that adds the prototype I originally missed?
Be good to clear up what I need to do before I spend more time on it.
Ian
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |