Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264804AbUDWNaX (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:30:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264807AbUDWNaX (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:30:23 -0400 Received: from wombat.indigo.net.au ([202.0.185.19]:5135 "EHLO wombat.indigo.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264804AbUDWNaS (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:30:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:33:10 +0800 (WST) From: raven@themaw.net To: Christoph Hellwig cc: Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: 2.6.6-rc2-mm1 In-Reply-To: <20040423131149.B1218@infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <20040421014544.37942eb4.akpm@osdl.org> <20040423131149.B1218@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.7, required 8, EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION, IN_REP_TO, NO_REAL_NAME, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_PINE) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1349 Lines: 42 On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:32:39PM +0800, raven@themaw.net wrote: > > +static int __may_umount_tree(struct vfsmount *mnt, int root_mnt_only) > > +{ > > + struct list_head *next; > > + struct vfsmount *this_parent = mnt; > > + int actual_refs; > > + int minimum_refs; > > + > > + spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock); > > + actual_refs = atomic_read(&mnt->mnt_count); > > + minimum_refs = 2; > > + > > + if (root_mnt_only) { > > + spin_unlock(&vfsmount_lock); > > + if (actual_refs > minimum_refs) > > + return -EBUSY; > > + return 0; > > Sorry for changing my opionin, but I somehow thought autofs3 could make > more use of this function. it it's really just a single atomic_read that's > shared it doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it? > That's right. autofs3 requires it to behave as per the little description I put in. So is the first version what we want? Should I do a patch which reverts it or should I do a new patch that adds the prototype I originally missed? Be good to clear up what I need to do before I spend more time on it. Ian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/