Re: [PATCH 00/20] Mount writer count and read-only bind mounts (v3)

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:24:31 -0700
"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:17:27 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:50:36 -0700
> > Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Since the last revision, the locking in faccessat() and
> > > > > mnt_is_readonly() has been changed to fix a race which might have
> > > > > caused a false-negative mount-is-readonly return when faccessat()
> > > > > is called while another two processes are racing to make a mount
> > > > > readonly.
> > > > > 
> > > > umm, what's it all for?
> > > 
> > > Mostly for vserver, for now.  They allow a filesystem to be r/w, but
> > > have r/o views into it.  This is really handy so that every vserver can
> > > use a common install but still allow the administrator to update it.
> > 
> > OK.  That makes it one of those features which stays in -mm until we work
> > out what we're going to do about containers/vserver/etc.
> > 
> > Unless there's something else which needs it?
> > 
> > This is all rather important info, you know.  It should be presented
> > front-and-centre in [patch 0/N].  In detail...
> 
> TPP says not to use patch 0/N.... !!?!!?!?!?
> so which way do you want it?
> 

Well.  I do tend to prefer that the big preamble be in [1/N] because git
doesn't support patches which have changelog and no diff (not that it
should).  But there's a certain sense in [0/N] when communicating by email.

But that's not the point.