On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 21:43 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:37:51PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > Argh... OK, I'll try to put something together tonight, after I get some > > > sleep - 31 hours of uptime _suck_ ;-/ > > > > Gosh, yes. > .....snip... > Is there any reason why we do that in ->umount_begin() and not *after* > it, unconditionally, straight from do_umount()? AFAICS, the only reason > why it's done from fs-specific code is figuring out which mount-list > should the stuff go back to, and that's both broken *and* not needed > with sanitized locking as above. While we are at it, I'd rather return > ->umount_begin() to its previous prototype, TYVM - the less filesystem > sees vfsmounts, the better off we all are... I think that ->umount_begin also acts a hook for providing pre-umount event notification to userspace from filesystems; something that is required by DMAPI interface. RP > > Comments? If nobody objects, I'm going to do that in vfs-fixes branch > and then push to Linus... -- 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
