[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:0.019 / U:15.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site