On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:21:30PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 22:48 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > I disagree. First of all, clear separation between operations on > > _filesystem_, which should all be namespace-agnostic and things > > that depend on vfsmount is a Good Thing(tm). Think of that as > > of separation between server (superblock and everything related > > to it, starting with dentry tree) and clients; mixing those is a > > bloody bad idea. > > Speaking of which: is there any reason why we can't get rid of the > vfsmount reference in struct file? > > Most file operations, don't involve namespace traversal at all: aside > from fchdir(), and the *at() functions (all of which take file > descriptors, not pointers to struct file) the only function of that > vfsmount reference appears to be to prevent the superblock from going > away. Huh? Are you proposing to move that to descriptor table, of all things? Not to mention SCM_RIGHTS datagrams and hell knows what else... -- 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
