Hello, Eric.

On 03/31/2010 02:51 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

I haven't looked at later patches but I suppose this is gonna be
filled with more meaningful stuff later. 

Yes it will.

quoted

One (possibly silly) thing
that stands out compared to get_sb_single() is missing remount
handling.  Is it intended?

There is nothing for a remount to do so I ignore it.   The only
thing that would possibly be meaningful is a read-only mount,
and nothing I know of sysfs suggests read-only mounts of sysfs
work, or make any sense.

I see.  Wouldn't it be better to make that design choice evident by
stating the choice in the comment or at least in the patch
description?  As it currently stands, you're burying a clear
functional change in a seemingly innocent patch which contains zero
line of comment and two lines of description.  The same pattern holds
for this whole patchset.  Where are the comments and descriptions
about the design and implementation?  :-(

Thanks.

-- 
tejun