On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:21:04PM -0400, Josef Sipek wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:31:15AM -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote: > ... > > Here is where I am thinking about going with crossing lower mount > > points. This patch makes sure that there is a 1-to-1 mapping in > > inode numbers between the stacked inodes and the lower inodes. It > > maintains the association by modifying the struct inode to include > > a back pointer from the lower inode to the stacked inode. > > Do you maintain the inode numbers across mounts (of ecryptfs)? The > patch doesn't look like it does. Nope; this patch just aims to make sure that stacked and lower inodes maintain a 1-to-1 relationship. > > + inode->i_private = NULL; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_STACK_FS > > + inode->i_stacked_inode = NULL; > > +#endif > > inode->i_mapping = mapping; > > Hrm. Looking at this made me think...This patch introduces pointers > up the stack in the VFS. Would it make sense to introduce the down > pointers as well, and make ecryptfs, et. al., depend on STACK_FS? > This would clean up some of the use of private data. Of course these > pointers (the up & down) make struct inode grow 8 bytes (on 32-bit > systems). I would say that using the existing private data pointer is a better option than consuming more space in each and every inode struct. Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
