Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Valerie Aurora
Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - 2:42 pm

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 08:33:45PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

This is elegant and readable code.  I am still reviewing it but have a
few comments now.


Passing a NULL namiedata pointer to vfs_create() is a convenient
temporary hack, but unfortunately NFS, ceph, etc. still use the
nameidata passed to vfs_create() and other ops.

The way union mounts gets a valid nameidata is by doing the create in
the VFS before calling file system ops that may trigger a copyup,
while we still have the original nameidata.  This is one of the major
reasons union mounts lives in the VFS.

A lot of my conversations about union mounts with Al go like this:

Al: "Rewrite it this way."
Val: "But then how do we get the nameidata?"
Al: "Arrrrrrrrrrrrrggggh."

Can you think of a way to construct a good nameidata for these
implicit copyups?  That might be a solution.

-VAL
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, Miklos Szeredi, (Thu Aug 26, 11:33 am)
Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, Valerie Aurora, (Wed Sep 1, 2:42 pm)
Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, Miklos Szeredi, (Thu Sep 2, 2:19 am)
Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, Valerie Aurora, (Thu Sep 2, 2:33 pm)
Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, Valerie Aurora, (Thu Sep 2, 2:42 pm)
Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, Miklos Szeredi, (Fri Sep 3, 1:52 am)
Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, Miklos Szeredi, (Fri Sep 3, 2:16 am)
Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, Miklos Szeredi, (Fri Sep 3, 5:31 am)
Re: [PATCH 5/5] union: hybrid union filesystem prototype, David P. Quigley, (Thu Sep 9, 9:02 am)