On Mon 07-04-14 18:09:02, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 22:27 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Mon 07-04-14 10:10:27, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > The problem seems to be the use of iterate_supers(), which grabs a > > > passive reference, and conflicts with our use of an active reference in > > > the open context. > > Yeah, we cannot really do otherwise in iterate_supers() - we have to grab > > some superblock reference and we don't really want to get an active one > > since that would result in spurious EBUSY returns from umount. > > BTW: By what mechanism does an active reference lead to EBUSY issues > here? Ah, sorry. I was wrong. We use mount usecount for this. But still using active reference for iterate_supers() seems wrong as that could result in handling of destruction of superblock from it... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
