Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752436AbdFNRyb (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:54:31 -0400 Received: from mail-yb0-f176.google.com ([209.85.213.176]:33811 "EHLO mail-yb0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751714AbdFNRy3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:54:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:54:26 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: David Howells Cc: mszeredi@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, jlayton@redhat.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 27/27] kernfs, sysfs, cgroup: Support fs_context [ver #5] Message-ID: <20170614175426.GA26229@htj.duckdns.org> References: <149745330648.10897.9605870130502083184.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <149745355907.10897.10073768158664960494.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <149745355907.10897.10073768158664960494.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 876 Lines: 32 Hello, David. On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:19:19PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Make kernfs support superblock creation/mount/remount with fs_context. > > This requires that sysfs and cgroup, which are built on kernfs, be made to > support fs_context also. Can you please include a brief rationale for doing this and include a pointer to the fuller description on what's going on? > Weirdies: > > (*) cgroup_do_get_tree() calls cset_cgroup_from_root() with locks held, > but then uses the resulting pointer after dropping the locks. I'm > told this is okay and needs commenting. Yeah, will add the comment. > (*) The cgroup refcount web. This really needs documenting. If you're talking about the mount refcnt part, yeah, it's confusing to me too and we definitely need to document it better. > (*) cgroup2 only has one root? Yeap. Thanks. -- tejun