It never made any sense - neither when copy_tree() had been introduced
(2.4.11-pre5), nor at any point afterwards. Mountpoint is meaningless
without parent mount and the root of copied tree has no parent until we get
around to attaching it somewhere. At that time we'll have mountpoint set;
before that we have no idea which dentry will be used as mountpoint.
IOW, copy_tree() should just leave the default value.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/namespace.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
index e13d9ab4f564..5eeb17c39fcb 100644
--- a/fs/namespace.c
+++ b/fs/namespace.c
@@ -2259,7 +2259,6 @@ struct mount *copy_tree(struct mount *src_root, struct dentry *dentry,
return dst_mnt;
src_parent = src_root;
- dst_mnt->mnt_mountpoint = src_root->mnt_mountpoint;
list_for_each_entry(src_root_child, &src_root->mnt_mounts, mnt_child) {
if (!is_subdir(src_root_child->mnt_mountpoint, dentry))
--
2.39.5
