On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:54:19 +0800 Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sorry, I should have added Jeff to the cc for this post. > > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 16:38 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 03:42 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:26:17AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > > I've applied slightly modified variant of Jeff's "vfs: allow umount to handle > > > > mountpoints without revalidating them" (modified by just leaving the > > > > struct path filled with mountpoint and leaving the equivalent of follow_mount() > > > > to caller) to the local queue and I'm pretty sure that it's what we want > > > > here as well. > > > > > > ... and killed the modifications since the result ends up uglier for > > > caller(s) anyway. Reapplied as-is. > > > > Looks like Jeff's patch has been merged, commit 8033426e6. > > > > Revalidation isn't the only thing not done on the last component using > > Jeff's user_path_umountat() path walk. It also bypasses the managed > > dentry code for the last component, which is why it's what I need as > > well. > > > > Encoding umount in the name seems misleading as to what it really does > > as would encoding unmanaged or similar since that doesn't properly cover > > it either. > > > > I can rename it in a patch to solve my autofs problem, so how about > > something like user_path_simple_last(), other suggestions anyone? > > > > Ian > > Since the purpose is to find mountpoints, maybe user_path_mntpoint()? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
