Hi. Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2008 10:52:53 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: >> Hi. >> >> Oliver Neukum wrote: >>> Am Donnerstag 03 Januar 2008 schrieb Nigel Cunningham: >>>> On top of this, I made a (too simple at the moment) freeze_filesystems >>>> function which iterates through &super_blocks in reverse order, freezing >>>> fuse filesystems or ordinary ones. I say 'too simple' because it doesn't >>>> currently allow for the possibility of someone mounting (say) ext3 on >>>> fuse, but that would just be an extension of what's already done. >>> How do you deal with fuse server tasks using other fuse filesystems? >> Since they're frozen in reverse order, the dependant one would be frozen >> first. > > Say I do: > > a) mount fuse on /tmp/first > b) mount fuse on /tmp/second > > Then the server task for (a) does "ls /tmp/second". So it will be frozen, > right? How do you then freeze (a)? And keep in mind that the server task > may have forked.
I guess I should first ask, is this a real life problem or a hypothetical twisted web? I don't see why you would want to make two filesystems interdependent - it sounds like the way to create livelock and deadlocks in normal use, before we even begin to think about hibernating. Regards, Nigel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
