Quoting Paul Menage (menage@xxxxxxxxxx): > On 6/8/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >The problem is container_clone() doesn't call ->create explicitly, it > >does vfs_mkdir. So we have no real way of passing in clone_task. > > > > Good point. > > Looking at vfs_mkdir(), it's pretty simple, and really the only bits > that apply to container_clone() are the call to ->mkdir() and possibly > the call to fsnotify_mkdir(). (I think that's maybe how you did it > originally?) Yes it was. > Maybe it would make sense to just call container_create() at that > point directly, which would allow us more parameters. I do fear that that could become a maintenance nightmare. For instance right now there's the call to fsnotify_mkdir(). Other such hooks might be placed at vfs_mkdir, which we'd then likely want to have placed in our container_mkdir() and container_clone() fns. And of course may_create() is static inline in fs/namei.c. It's trivial, but still if it changes we'd want to change the version in kernel/container.c as well. What would be the main advantage of doing it this way? Do you consider the extra subys->auto_setup() hook to be avoidable bloat? thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
