Re: 2.6.0-test6 crash while reading files in /proc/fs/reiserfs/sda1

[Nikita Danilov <Nikita@Namesys.COM>]

viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk writes:
 > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:08:26PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
 > > What about creating fake struct vfsmount for /proc/fs/reiserfs/<devname>
 > > and attaching it to the super block of /<mountpoint>? After all
 > > /proc/fs/reiserfs/<devname> is just a view into /<mountpoint>. This will
 > > automatically guarantee that /<mountpoint> cannot be unmounted while
 > > files in /proc/fs/reiserfs/<devname> are opened. Will this screw up
 > > dcache?
 > 
 > I don't see what it would buy you - you get to revalidate the pointer to
 > vfsmount instead of revalidating pointer to superblock, which is not easier.

I thought that opening procfs file would do mntget() that will pin super
block of host file system. Wouldn't it?

 > sget()-based revalidation actually works OK - see previous reply for details.
 > With optimistic sget() (which we should've done a long time ago) it's
 > actually cheaper than your original "search by dev_t" - you are looking
 > only through reiserfs superblocks instead of all superblocks in system.

Yes, I agree.

 >  
 > > Yes, possible. I had similar problem in reiser4 also: for some seq_file,
 > > x_start() allocated some data structure (struct x_struct) that is used
 > > by x_next(), x_show(), and is deallocated in x_stop(). As x_struct is
 > > per read invocation rather than per file it cannot be stored in seq_file
 > > itself. I had to resort to returning x_struct from x_start() and passing
 > > it without change through x_next()'s. Thing actually changed by x_next()
 > > was embedded in x_struct. Last x_next() had to deallocate x_struct and
 > > to return NULL (much like your example above).
 > 
 > Umm...  And what's the problem with that?  If your context is created by
 > ->start() and is needed by ->next() and ->stop(), the above is obvious
 > solution - you are already passing opaque pointer through that sequence,
 > so that's about as straightforward as it gets...

It looks unnatural to return constant from ->next(), hiding mutable part
inside.

Also code duplication in ->next() and ->stop(). No objective reasons,
but new interface will provide more clean (and intuitive to me)
separation of error reporting, iteration context, and iteration cookie.

Nikita.