On Tue 02-03-10 17:24:36, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Tue 02-03-10 17:04:26, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> >> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Sat 27-02-10 03:25:49, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> >> >> +/**
> >> >> + * Check whenever is it possible to remount given sb to readonly.
> >> >> + * @sb : super block in question
> >> >> + *
> >> >> + * Caller is responsible to set ST_REMOUNT_RO state before the call.
> >> >> + */
> >> >> +int fs_may_remount_ro(struct super_block *sb)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct vfsmount *mnt;
> >> >> + int ret = 1;
> >> >> + spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
> >> >> + list_for_each_entry(mnt, &sb->s_vfsmount, mnt_sb_list) {
> >> >> + ret = !mnt_check_writers(mnt, 0);
> >> >> + if (ret)
> >> >> + break;
> >> >> + }
> >> >> + spin_unlock(&vfsmount_lock);
> >> >> + /*
> >> >> + * If new writer appears after we have checked all vfsmounts.
> >> >> + * Then ST_REMOUNT_RO bit will be cleared.
> >> >> + */
> >> >> + if (!test_bit(ST_REMOUNT_RO, &sb->s_state))
> >> >> + ret = 0;
> >> >> + return ret;
> >> >> +}
> >> > This misses the case when the superblock as unlinked-but-open files.
> >> > In such case we have to fail remount RO as well. The original
> >> > fs_may_remount_ro checks for that..
> >> Since file is opened for write one of vfsmnt struct would have non
> >> zero write count. So -EBUSY will be returned from fs_may_remount_ro()
> > But file can be open for reading only...
> Ohh.. i see. what is the reason to fail RO remount due to unlinked
> files? Is this because not all filesystem has orphan list?
Yes, this is the main reason.
> Shame on such FS. Seems that i have to also grab write count
> in unlink path if i_nlink becomes zero and drop on inode release.
Yes, I'd imagine some solution like this as well.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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
