From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D62D76B00CF for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/23] vfs: Introduce infrastructure for revoking a file References: <1243893048-17031-4-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20090602071411.GE31556@wotan.suse.de> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:52:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Tue\, 2 Jun 2009 10\:06\:00 -0700 \(PDT\)") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Nick Piggin , Al Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Tejun Heo , Alexey Dobriyan , Alan Cox , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , "Eric W. Biederman" List-ID: Linus Torvalds writes: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote: >> >> Why is it called hotplug? Does it have anything to do with hardware? >> Because every concurrently changed software data structure in the >> kernel can be "hot"-modified, right? >> >> Wouldn't file_revoke_lock be more appropriate? > > I agree, "hotplug" just sounds crazy. It's "open" and "revoke", not > "plug" and "unplug". I guess this shows my bias in triggering this code path from pci hotunplug. Instead of with some system call. I'm not married to the name. I wanted file_lock but that is already used, and I did call the method revoke. The only place where hotplug gives a useful hint is that it makes it clear we really are disconnecting the file descriptor from what lies below it. We can't do some weird thing like keep the underlying object. Because the underlying object is gone. Eric -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org