Gu, On Friday, May 24, 2013 11:03:31 Gu Zheng wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On 05/24/2013 07:32 AM, Stephen Mell wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 23, 2013 18:20:57 Gu Zheng wrote: > > > >> Here it'll create a new proc sb instance which holds the same context as > >> the old ones > >> each time we mount proc though in the same PID namespace, won't it? > > I believe so. But this is the point, right?
> Yes, but I think it's also the problem. > > >They won't be identical if different mount options are used, I don't think. > > If different mount options are used, we'll create different super block > instance, and they have > the same context, only the difference is each one holds different > proc_sb_info. > But I think what we really want is only one proc sb instance and create > different proc_sb_info > if different mount options are used. Will having several different superblocks cause problems, or is it merely inefficient? I freely admit to not really knowing what I'm doing, and I thank you for your assistance. How is this situation distinct from that of ramfs? It appears to have a superblock for each mount. It would seem to me as though one cannot have different sb_infos with the same superblock, making storing the mount options in sb_info effectively the same as storing them in the superblock itself, for the purposes of this discussion. Where would the mount options be stored, if not in the superblock? > > > >> Here the pre-check seems needless. > > Is that new with my patch, or has it always been needless? > > Yeah, it's always needless. > > Thanks, > Gu > > > > > Thanks, > > Stephen Thanks again, Stephen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
