Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009, ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Hello, >> > >> > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> It isn't what I want but it is what the VFS requires. If let the vfs >> >> continue on it's delusional state we will leak the vfs mount and >> >> everything mounted on top of it, with no way to remove the mounts. > > "umount -l" on the whole thing will clear any submounts up too. > >> > >> > This is caused by not having any way to prevent deletion on >> > directories with submounts, right? How does other distributed >> > filesystems deal with directories with submounts going away underneath >> > it? >> >> NFS does exactly the same thing I am doing. > > Yes, this is a problem for NFS too. You cannot tell the NFS server > "this directory is mounted on some client, don't let anything happen > to it!". Basically the remaining choices are: > > a) let the old path leading up to the mount still be accessible, even > though it doesn't exist anymore on the server (or has been replaced > with something different) > > b) automatically dissolve any submounts if the path disappeard on the > server > > I think Al was arguing in favor of b), while Linus said that mounts > must never just disappear, so a) is better. I don't think an > agreement was reached. I haven't seen that conversation. I do know it is non-intutive and if you attempt to delete what is a mount point in another mount namespace and it won't go away. (What we do for non-distributed filesystems). So I would favor mount points dissolving if we had the infrastructure. Regardless the goal for now is to simply catch up with other distributed filesystems. 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
