> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 11:03:08AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
quoted text
> > 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.

Miklos
-
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