Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...>, Hans Reiser <reiser@...>, <linux-fsdevel@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Alexander Lyamin aka FLX <flx@...>, ReiserFS List <reiserfs-list@...>
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:00:49AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
User-visible change of behaviour and IIRC a SuS violation on top of that.
So why lock it at all in that case?
Never had been needed on crossing mountpoints, actually.
See above. Again, the fundamental problem with that is allowing unlink
and friends on a mountpoint. I would love to do that, but it always
generated -EBUSY on all Unices. Linux got a bit more users and userland
code than Plan 9 - they can afford such changes, but...
And yes, from the kernel POV it's trivial to do - witness the MNT_DETACH
codepath in umount - it's much simpler than "normal" umount exactly because
it doesn't try to emulate old "it's busy, can't umount" behaviour.
With umount we could introduce "don't bother with that shit" flag. With
unlink() we would have to make that default behaviour to be useful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html