On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 04:04:32PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:17:35PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > * call in ext2_remount() is hogwash - we do that with at least > > root inode pinned down, so it will fail, along with the remount attempt. > > And having it fail is a good thing. XIP mode means different file and > address_space operations, which we don't even try to deal with right > now. Not allowing transitions from/to it is the right thing. Exactly. But that should be done without that ridiculous call to invalidate_inodes() - we should simply fail remount() and be done with that. > > * smb reconnect logics. AFAICS, that's complete crap; we *never* > > retain inodes on smbfs. IOW, nothing for invalidate_inodes() to do, other > > than evict fsnotify marks. Which is to say, we are calling the wrong > > function there, even assuming that fsnotify should try to work there. > > I don't think it should mess with fsnotify. fsnotify_unmount_inodes > assumes it's only called on umount right now, and sends umount > notifications to userspace (see my mail from a few days ago). So if > you split invalidate_inodes it really should only go into the umount > one. No, I mean that it's not obvious that fsnotify clients can realistically work on smbfs in the first place. I.e. I suspect that fsnotify should refuse to set marks on that sucker. -- 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
