From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261551AbUEFEoh (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 00:44:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261602AbUEFEoh (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 00:44:37 -0400 Received: from [66.35.79.110] ([66.35.79.110]:25240 "EHLO www.hockin.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261551AbUEFEog (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 00:44:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 21:44:33 -0700 From: Tim Hockin To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Subject: lazy-umount cwd and .. Message-ID: <20040506044433.GA13933@hockin.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I notice that a process that is in a dir which gets lazy-unmounted suddenly sees it's current dir change and its '..' dir points back to itself. I'm not sure it's a huge deal, but we have a half-patch floating around that changes the behavior such that the unmounted mnt->mnt_parent is retained and unreferenced when the mnt is finally released. This seems to make any process which is in the unmounted mount not see anything different, but does not let any new processes into the mount. Minor, but friendly. Should I bother to polish this patch off and send it, or is it just not something we want to care about? Tim