[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] file as directory
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 11:03:08AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > I still don't get it where the superblock comes in. The locking is
> > "interesting" in there, yes. And I haven't completely convinced
> > myself it's right, let alone something that won't easily be screwed up
> > in the future. So there's definitely room for thought there.
> >
> > But how does it matter if two different paths have the same sb or a
> > different sb mounted over them?
> Because then you get a slew of fun issues with dropping the final reference
> to vfsmount vs. lookup on another place. What hold do you have on that
> superblock and when do you switch from "oh, called ->enter() on the same
> inode again, return vfsmount over the same superblock" to "need to
> initialize that damn superblock, all mounts are gone"?
> > The same dentry is mounted over each one. The contents of the
> > directory should only depend on the contents of the underlying inode.
> > The path leading up to it is completely irrelevant.
> So what kind of exclusion do you have for ->enter()? None?

So really these issues, are about how do we get hold of the superblock
to mount.

I think that should be a filesystem internal problem, and I suspect
the easiest solution is to just have a permanent meta superblock for
these dir-on-file mounts.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-23 12:17    [W:0.059 / U:8.564 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site