Re: [PATCH] fs: Restore files_lock and set_fs_root exports

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:24:17PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:04:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:32:59PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:15:31PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Yep, you win the prize, it is MVFS.
> > > > 
> > > > This is the usual port of an existing body of code to the Linux kernel.
> > > > It is not asking for a new export, only restoration of a previously existing
> > > > export.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, but "our code is badly misdesigned" does not make a valid excuse
> > > when you have been told, repeatedly, by many people, for at least a year
> > > that you needed to sanitize your design.
> > 
> > The obvious searches did not find this for me.  Any pointers so that
> > I can bring to the MVFS guys' attention any alternatives that might
> > have been recommended?
> 
> "Use recursive bindings instead of trying to take over the entire mount tree
> and mirroring it within your fs code.  And do that explicitly from userland".

Thank you for the pointer!  By this, you mean do mount operations in
conjunction with namespaces, right?

I will follow up with more detail as I learn more.  The current issue
seems to be with removeable devices.  Their users want to be accessing
a particular version, but still see a memory stick that was subsequently
mounted outside of the view.  Straightforward use of mounts and namespaces
would prevent the memory stick from being visible to users that were
already in view.

							Thanx, Paul
-
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/