Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock

[Christoph Hellwig]

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.

> 	* 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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/