It seems that your reply to [0/5] has the description that I was asking
for in my last response.

On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 14:11 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:24:02 -0400
> "David P. Quigley" <dpquigl@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> 
> > I may be missing something but I looked at your patch series and I see
> > no good reason for this patch at all. You just churned a lot of code for
> > something that you don't even have a need for in the patch set. Your
> > only two new callers of this function could just as easily have used the
> > inode since it isn't doing anything special with the dentry. It actually
> > pulls the inode out of it and uses it in generic_permission and
> > security_inode_permission. If you are going to change this you should
> > also change generic_permission as well. Honestly I'd rather see the
> > dentry requirement removed from inode operations instead but
> > unfortunately this isn't possible as I found out with my attempts to
> > remove the dentry requirement for get/setxattr
> 
> 
> union_permission needs the dentry to get access to d_fsdata, which caches the
> upperpath and lowerpath which were found at lookup time.
> 
> Is that what you missed?
> 
> NeilBrown
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/