On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 03:57:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I personally consider this an affront to everythign that is decent. > > Why the *hell* would mkdir() be so magical as to need something like that? > > Make it something sane, like a "struct nameidata" instead, and make it at > least try to look like the path creation that is done by "open()". Or > create a "struct file *" or something. No. I agree that mkdir/mknod/etc. should all take the same thing. *However*, it should not be nameidata or file. Why? Because it should not contain vfsmount. Object creation should not *care* where fs is mounted. At all. The same goes for open(), BTW - letting it see the reference to vfsmount via nameidata is bloody wrong and I really couldn't care less what kinds of perversions apparmour crowd might like - pathnames simply do not belong there. Said that, I agree that we need uniform prototypes for all these guys and I can see arguments both for and against having creds passed by reference stored in whatever struct we are passing (for: copy-on-write refcounted cred objects would almost never have to be modified or copied and normally we would just pick the current creds reference from task_struct and assing it to a single field in whatever we pass instead of nameidata; against: might be conceptually simpler to have all that data directly in that struct and a helper filling it in). Which way we do that and which struct we end up passing is a very good question, but I want to make it very clear: having object creation/removal/ renaming methods[1] depend on which vfsmount we are dealing with is *wrong*. IOW, I strongly object against the use of nameidata here. - 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
