On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 21:43 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:37:51PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 
> > > Argh...  OK, I'll try to put something together tonight, after I get some
> > > sleep - 31 hours of uptime _suck_ ;-/
> > 
> > Gosh, yes.
> 
.....snip...
quoted text
> Is there any reason why we do that in ->umount_begin() and not *after*
> it, unconditionally, straight from do_umount()?  AFAICS, the only reason
> why it's done from fs-specific code is figuring out which mount-list
> should the stuff go back to, and that's both broken *and* not needed
> with sanitized locking as above.  While we are at it, I'd rather return
> ->umount_begin() to its previous prototype, TYVM - the less filesystem
> sees vfsmounts, the better off we all are...

I think that ->umount_begin also acts a hook for providing pre-umount
event notification to userspace from filesystems; something that is
required by DMAPI interface.

RP

quoted text
> 
> Comments?  If nobody objects, I'm going to do that in vfs-fixes branch
> and then push to Linus...

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