Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 11:05 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:15 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > >> > > 2> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 20:37 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > > > > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:43 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > > > > > > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Eric, Mateusz, I appreciate your spending time on this and >> > > > > > > > particularly >> > > > > > > > pointing >> > > > > > > > out my embarrassingly stupid is_local_mountpoint() usage >> > > > > > > > mistake. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Please accept my apology for the inconvenience. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If all goes well (in testing) I'll have follow up patches to >> > > > > > > > correct >> > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > fairly >> > > > > > > > soon. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Related question. Do you happen to know how many mounts per mount >> > > > > > > namespace tend to be used? It looks like it is going to be wise >> > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > put >> > > > > > > a configurable limit on that number. And I would like the default >> > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > be >> > > > > > > something high enough most people don't care. I believe autofs is >> > > > > > > likely where people tend to use the most mounts. >> > > > >> > > > Yes, I agree, I did want to try and avoid changing the parameters to >> > > > ->d_mamange() but passing a struct path pointer might be better in the >> > > > long >> > > > run >> > > > anyway. >> > > >> > > Given that there is exactly one implementation of d_manage in the tree I >> > > don't imagine it will be disruptive to change that. >> > >> > Yes, but it could be used by external modules. >> > >> > And there's also have_submounts(). >> >> Good point about have_submounts. >> >> > I can update that using the existing d_walk() infrastructure or take it >> > (mostly) >> > into the autofs module and get rid of have_submounts(). >> > >> > I'll go with the former to start with and see what people think. >> >> That will be interesting to so. It is not clear to me that if d_walk >> needs to be updated, and if d_walk doesn't need to be updated I would >> be surprised to see it take into autofs. But I am happy to look at the >> end result and see what you come up with. > > I didn't mean d_walk() itself, just the have_submounts() function that's used > only by autofs these days. That's all I'll be changing. > > To take this functionality into the autofs module shouldn't be a big deal as it > amounts to a directory traversal with a check at each node. > > But I vaguely remember talk of wanting to get rid of have_submounts() and autofs > being the only remaining user. > > So I mentioned it to try and elicit a comment, ;) >From my perspective the key detail is that d_walk is private to dcache.c That said you want to look at may_umount_tree, or may_umount that are already exported from fs/namespace.c, and already used by autofs. One of those may already do the job you are trying to do. It looks like at least may_umount needs to be examined to see if it does the right thing for the tweaked semantics of autofs. Eric -- 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
