On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 03:53:36PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:So what happens if new lookup hits between umount and rmdir? Another thing: would be nice to write down the expected state of dentry (positive/negative, flags, has/hasn't ->d_fsdata, flags on ->d_fsdata) for all stages. I'll go through the code and do that once I get some sleep, but if you'll have time to do it before that... FWIW, I wonder if it would be better to leave the directory alone and just have the daemon mount the sucker elsewhere and let the kernel side move the damn thing in place itself, along with making dentry positive and waking the sleepers up. Then we might get away with not unlocking anything at all... That obviously doesn't help the current systems with existing daemon, but it might be interesting for the next autofs version... Note that we don't even have to mount it anywhere - mount2() is close to the top of the pile for the next couple of cycles and it'd separate "activate fs" from "attach fully set up fs to given place", with the former resulting in a descriptor and the latter being mount2(Attach, dir_fd, fs_fd); Kernel side of autofs might receive the file descriptor in question and do the rest itself... --
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: Long delay in resume from RAM (Was Re: [patch 00/69] -stablereview) |
| Parag Warudkar | BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 15s! [swapper:0] |
git: | |
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH RFC] [4/9] modpost: Fix format string warnings |
| Rick Jones | Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| Antonio Almeida | HTB accuracy for high speed |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
