Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220601011103.12681-1-dlunev@google.com> <20220601111059.v4.2.I692165059274c30b59bed56940b54a573ccb46e4@changeid>
 <CAJfpegsitwAnrU3H3ig3a7AWKknTZNo0cFc5kPm09KzZGgO-bQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegsitwAnrU3H3ig3a7AWKknTZNo0cFc5kPm09KzZGgO-bQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniil Lunev <dlunev@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:50:26 +1000
Message-ID: <CAONX=-cB+hhjoZc_sy_swe6Tq6yMPdgdXu6mQE6y=fT+PVtMyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] FUSE: Retire superblock on force unmount
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        Daniil Lunev <dlunev@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Miklos,
Thanks for your response and apologies for my delayed reply.

> Why the double sign-off?
Some misconfiguration on my side. I will remove the extra line in the
next patch version

> And this is called for both block and non-block supers.  Which means
> that the bdi will be unregistered, yet the sb could still be reused
> (see fuse_test_super()).

Just to confirm my understanding, fuse_test_super needs to have the
same check as the super.c test_* function, correct?
--Daniil