Hello,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 08:45:50AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index bb263d0caab3..9a09308c8066 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -1819,8 +1819,11 @@ static struct dentry *cgroup_mount(struct
> file_system_type *fs_type,
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> - if (root->flags ^ opts.flags)
> - pr_warn("new mount options do not match the existing
> superblock, will be ignored\n");
> + if (root->flags ^ opts.flags) {
> + pr_warn("new mount options do not match the existing
> superblock\n");
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
Do we really need the above chunk?
> @@ -1909,7 +1912,7 @@ static void cgroup_kill_sb(struct super_block *sb)
> *
> * And don't kill the default root.
> */
> - if (css_has_online_children(&root->cgrp.self) ||
> + if (!list_empty(&root->cgrp.self.children) ||
> root == &cgrp_dfl_root)
> cgroup_put(&root->cgrp);
I tried to do something a bit more advanced so that eventual async
release of dying children, if they happen, can also release the
hierarchy but I don't think it really matters unless we can forcefully
drain. So, shouldn't just the above part be enough?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
