On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I agree, I sent patches for it in 2017. > > VFS version. > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9745295/ > > btrfs version: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9745295/ > > There wasn't response on btrfs-v2-patch. > > This is not the first time that I am writing patches ahead of > users asking for it, but unfortunately there is no response or > there are disagreements on those patches. I guess it could be a low priority for developers. But that's a big part of why doing this in VFS might be useful, generically, for all file systems? I have no idea what that boundary looks like between native file system and VFS. But if the mount related messages were removed from ext4, XFS, Btrfs, f2fs, FAT, that developers don't find that useful, and add in a proper plain language "(u)mount completed" in VFS, that would be, I think, useful for not just regular users, but users like systemd/init users, and others who have to sort out mount hangs and failures. Just exactly where did this hang up? I can't tell and it's different behavior for every file system. I'm not opposed to each file system having their own (u)mount completed message, indicating a boundary where the native code ends, and VFS code begins. But again that's up to developers. I just want to know if the hang means we're stuck somewhere in *kernel* mount code. >From the prior example, I can't tell that at all, there just isn't enough information. -- Chris Murphy
