Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:36:05 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/24] nfs: check mnt instead of superblock directly
Message-ID: <20070919173605.GP20917@infradead.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>, akpm@osdl.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20070917182718.70494C9B@kernel> <20070917182739.6987C126@kernel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070917182739.6987C126@kernel>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 858
Lines: 22

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:27:39AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> If we depend on the inodes for writeability, we will not
> catch the r/o mounts when implemented.
> 
> This patches uses __mnt_want_write().  It does not guarantee
> that the mount will stay writeable after the check.  But,
> this is OK for one of the checks because it is just for a
> printk().
> 
> The other two are probably unnecessary and duplicate existing
> checks in the VFS.  This won't make them better checks than
> before, but it will make them detect r/o mounts.

Ok from me, but can please get a nfs person to look over this
aswell?

-
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/