Re: Stale super_blocks in 2.2

[Phil Auld]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > does not do anything to invalidate the buffers associated with the
> > unmounted device. We then rely on disk change detection on a
> > subsequent mount to prevent us from seeing the old super_block.
> 
> 2.2 yes, 2.4 no

That can be a problem for fiber channel devices. I saw some issues with
invalidate_buffers and page caching discussed in 2.4 space. Any reasons 
come to mind why I shouldn't call invalidate on the the way down instead 
(or in addition)?

Thanks,

Phil
 
------------------------------------------------------
Philip R. Auld                         Kernel Engineer
Egenera Corp.                        [e-mail]
165 Forest St, Marlboro, MA 01752        [phone]