[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/30] r/o bind mounts: stub functions
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 04:49:39PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 19:32 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:37:30PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch adds two function mnt_want_write() and mnt_drop_write().
> > > These are used like a lock pair around and fs operations that might
> > > cause a write to the filesystem.
> >
> > Argh, is there some reason why this couldn't have gotten merged in
> > -rc1, ahead of the rest of the patch series? This one is going to
> > cause more cross-tree merge pain with any filesystem tree that have
> > changes to fs/*/ioctl.c.
> I wasn't meaning for this to hit the 2.6.25-rc series. We had some
> review comments just when the merge window opened, and I was expecting
> them to get stuck back in -mm for another round.

Yeah, but it means that I need one set of patches for -mm, and another
set of patches for Linus's mainline. I notice that your patchset is
currently missing changes for fs/ext4/ioctl.c --- I think because you
dropped them when Mingming picked them up, and then I dropped them
when I was trying to prepare the set of patches to push to Linus.

No problem, I'm sure I can ressurect them, but it's still the same
basic problem that when there are patchsets such as yours which touch
multiple trees in -mm, there are almost inevitably patch conflicts.

It would be nice if an initial patch which introduces the new
functionality you need for r/o bind mounts could get introduced into
mainline *first*, and then people could add patches that call
mnt_want_write(), et. al into their trees gradually.

As it is, I can't see a way around this other than maintaining two
separate patch sets, one that works with r/o bind mounts, and one for
mainline, since otherwise akpm gets grumpy and starts dropping either
your patchset or the ext4 patchset because *he* has to manually fix up
the patch conflicts. (So instead I have to deal with it by hand, and
then *I* get grumpy. :-/)

- Ted

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-16 02:05    [W:0.070 / U:2.944 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site