lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Umount & quotas
  Hello.

> --- fs/super.c Thu Nov 2 22:38:59 2000
> +++ fs/super.c.new Tue Nov 21 11:36:05 2000
> @@ -1037,13 +1037,13 @@
> }
>
> spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> - if (atomic_read(&mnt->mnt_count) > 2) {
> - spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> - mntput(mnt);
> - return -EBUSY;
> - }
>
> if (mnt->mnt_instances.next != mnt->mnt_instances.prev) {
> + if (atomic_read(&mnt->mnt_count) > 2) {
> + spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> + mntput(mnt);
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> if (sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_SINGLE)
> put_filesystem(sb->s_type);
> /* We hold two references, so mntput() is safe */
>
> Not ideal, but not worse than the variant before the fs/super.c rewrite.
> And yes, that's what was intended to be there. Said that, removing the
> automagical DQUOT_OFF completely looks like a good idea. If there is no
> serious reason to keep it in the kernel I would prefer to move it to
> userland. We already have to do quota-related stuff if umount(2) fails...
I think the only problem is that some people may rely on this behaviour.
There isn't probably any other reason as races with quotaoff before
someone does write are there even if we do quotaoff in kernel.
And these races aren't probably worth the work with fixing...
But I'm not sure whether we can just now stand up and say 'Umount doesn't
do quotaoff any more...'

Honza
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:47    [W:0.030 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site