On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 14:21 -0700, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Dave Hansen [dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 10:53 -0700, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > | > + * But for single-mount semantics, devpts cannot use get_sb_single(), > | > + * because get_sb_single()/sget() find and use the super-block from > | > + * the most recent mount of devpts. But that recent mount may be a > | > + * 'newinstance' mount and get_sb_single() would pick the newinstance > | > + * super-block instead of the initial super-block. > | > | Can't you just override the test() function to get what you want here? > > get_sb_single() does not take a test() parameter and so I would still > need a get_sb_ref() or get_sb_special() interface right ? > > This special interface could call sget() with a custom-test function, > to get the super-block. But in case of devpts, we already have the > super-block. So we don't need to call sget(). We just need get a reference > and remount. Well, you shouldn't be using get_sb_single() at all any more, right? At this point, you're doing something super-specialized for devpts. So, why do this in super.c. Just put it in place of devpts_get_sb()'s current contents. For me get_sb_ref() is a super-confusing name, especially when mixed with all the other sb functions. WTF is get_sb() doing if there's a get_sb_ref()? -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers