On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If you do like the idea, let me know if you want me to send a patch on >> top of v5. >> >> Do you plan to push v5 (+ "else if" bugfix) to overlayfs-next? >> >> If we go for my solution to endianess, we can add that patch >> as a fix patch (same goes for null uuid). > > I don't think doing the checks once per mount gets us much. Bytes are > cheap, checks are cheap, why add complexity? > I should ask myslef that question more often... > Pushed .v6 with these fixes. Takes care of future fixes to file > handle byte order by allowing CPU independent byte order as well. > One minor review comment. I used uuid_le_cmp(*uuid, NULL_UUID_LE) arbitrarily in my original patch, but if we want to stick to semantic sb->s_uuid is probably more accurately described as uuid_be, because filesystems most likely copy it in raw format from disk. This is purely semantic of course, but if you think that matters, may as well replace uuid_le with uuid_be. > I'd like to push to overlayfs-next if it appears to work and passes tests. > Reviewed and passed all tests. Cheers, Amir.
