[Devel] Re: [PATCH 08/10] Define get_sb_ref()

[Dave Hansen]

On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 14:21 -0700, sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> Dave Hansen [dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com] wrote:
> | On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 10:53 -0700, sukadev at us.ibm.com wrote:
> | > + *     But for single-mount semantics, devpts cannot use get_sb_single(),
> | > + *     because get_sb_single()/sget() find and use the super-block from
> | > + *     the most recent mount of devpts. But that recent mount may be a
> | > + *     'newinstance' mount and get_sb_single() would pick the newinstance
> | > + *     super-block instead of the initial super-block.
> | 
> | Can't you just override the test() function to get what you want here?
> 
> get_sb_single() does not take a test() parameter and so I would still
> need a get_sb_ref() or get_sb_special() interface right ? 
> 
> This special interface could call sget() with a custom-test function,
> to get the super-block.  But in case of devpts, we already have the
> super-block. So we don't need to call sget(). We just need get a reference
> and remount.

Well, you shouldn't be using get_sb_single() at all any more, right?

At this point, you're doing something super-specialized for devpts.  So,
why do this in super.c.  Just put it in place of devpts_get_sb()'s
current contents.

For me get_sb_ref() is a super-confusing name, especially when mixed
with all the other sb functions.  WTF is get_sb() doing if there's a
get_sb_ref()?

-- Dave

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers