On April 3, 2015 12:54:50 AM CDT, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 08:56:20PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>One general note - I'd probably put a pointer to that sucker into
>struct
>mount. For one thing, root-preserving clone_mnt() is a fairly common
>case. For another, searching for that thing in mnt_put_root() looks
>wrong. Matter of taste, but...
>
>Another thing is that IMO it's better to preallocate that thing in
>vfs_kern_mount() and free if it turns out to be unused. Simpler
>cleanup
>path that way...
Those do sound like reasonable simplifications.
>> - mnt->mnt.mnt_root = root;
>> + err = mnt_set_root(mnt, root);
>> + if (err) {
>> + dput(mnt->mnt.mnt_root);
>
> Unless I'm misreading your code, mnt_set_root() does *not* set it
>on failure, so what's going on here?
I will have to look when I get the code in front of me again.
>> #define DCACHE_FALLTHRU 0x01000000 /* Fall through to lower layer
>*/
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> +#define DCACHE_MOUNTROOT 0x01000000 /* is root of a vfsmount */
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Er...
Good point. I don't think DCACHE_FALLTHRU existed when I wrote the patch and I missed this detail during the rebase. Sigh.
I will fix it for the next round. Hopefully DCACHE_FALLTHRU does not have implications for the rest of my changes.
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
