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

[Al Viro]

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-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/