Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super

From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Olaf Hering <olh@suse.de>, Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>,
	Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:01:13 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <17420.59753.598191.388029@cse.unsw.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: message from Kirill Korotaev on Monday March 6

On Monday March 6, dev@openvz.org wrote:
> 
> In general your patch is still does what mine do, so I will be happy if 
> any of this is commited mainstream. In future, please, keep the 
> reference to original authors, this will also make sure that I'm on CC 
> if something goes wrong.

Sorry: which 'original author' did I miss ?

> >  
> > +		if (dentry->d_sb->s_root == NULL &&
> > +		    (parent == NULL ||
> > +		     parent->d_sb != dentry->d_sb))
> > +			continue;
> <<<<
> - we select some dentries in select_parent and then try to prune N 
> dentries. But this can be other N dentries :/ It's not the problem with 
> your code, but... adding 'parent' arg to prune_dcache() makes me feel 
> the same as with 'found' arg: you don't use it actually right way. You 
> don't prune only its children, you see? It is better to pass 'sb' arg then.
> 

That's a valid point.  I should be passing 'sb'.

Thanks,
NeilBrown