Hello Al,

I have a question about the commit you made last month.
When an application issues sys_oldumount(), ->umount_begin() will not be
called because the flag is 0. Is this behaviour intended?
And it it better to put the paranthesis around (flags & MNT_FORCE).


Junjiro Okajima


Al Viro:
quoted text
> 	Tonight's pile: getting ->umount_begin() back to sanity, race fixes
> around execve(), general cleanups.  Please, pull from
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git/ for-linus
> 
> Shortlog:
> 
> Al Viro (5):
>       restore sane ->umount_begin() API
	:::
quoted text
> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> index 0505fb6..f48f981 100644
> --- a/fs/namespace.c
> +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> @@ -1061,10 +1061,11 @@ static int do_umount(struct vfsmount *mnt, int flags)
>  	 * about for the moment.
>  	 */
>  
> -	lock_kernel();
> -	if (sb->s_op->umount_begin)
> -		sb->s_op->umount_begin(mnt, flags);
> -	unlock_kernel();
> +	if (flags & MNT_FORCE && sb->s_op->umount_begin) {
> +		lock_kernel();
> +		sb->s_op->umount_begin(sb);
> +		unlock_kernel();
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * No sense to grab the lock for this test, but test itself looks
--
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/