Re: 2.6.6-rc2-mm1

[raven]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:32:39PM +0800, raven@xxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/