> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 11:03:08AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > I still don't get it where the superblock comes in. The locking is > > "interesting" in there, yes. And I haven't completely convinced > > myself it's right, let alone something that won't easily be screwed up > > in the future. So there's definitely room for thought there. > > > > But how does it matter if two different paths have the same sb or a > > different sb mounted over them? > > Because then you get a slew of fun issues with dropping the final reference > to vfsmount vs. lookup on another place. What hold do you have on that > superblock and when do you switch from "oh, called ->enter() on the same > inode again, return vfsmount over the same superblock" to "need to > initialize that damn superblock, all mounts are gone"? > > > The same dentry is mounted over each one. The contents of the > > directory should only depend on the contents of the underlying inode. > > The path leading up to it is completely irrelevant. > > So what kind of exclusion do you have for ->enter()? None? > So really these issues, are about how do we get hold of the superblock to mount. I think that should be a filesystem internal problem, and I suspect the easiest solution is to just have a permanent meta superblock for these dir-on-file mounts. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
