lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.6-rc2-mm1
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.036 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site