> > > Sure, unionfs already does some of it now (and some of it can be recoded > > > more cleanly), but I'd like to get rid of much of it if I could -- these new > > > path_* helpers make me have to maintain vfsmounts even moreso than before. > > > > With the words of Al: "that is hogwash". Stacks either maintain > > vfsmounts or they don't. There's no middle ground. > > So, if I wanted to not maintain vfsmounts at all in unionfs, how can I use > the proposed new path_* helpers which require vfsmounts? Will there be some > other helpers available to perform lower-filesystem operations (e.g., mkdir, > create, unlink, etc.) which won't require passing vfsmounts? > > The "or they don't" is not much of an option when I'm forced to use an API > that requires a vfsmount... Yes. The vfsmount is already needed for open() and that pretty much determines the fate of all stacking filesystems, except the ones which don't want to do file I/O, but that is rather hard to imagine. And anyway, I don't see the issue here. If the stack wants to work on a single filesystem directly, just do a bind mount of the original to a kernel private mount and use that. I'm not sure this can be done with the current API, but it doesn't sound difficult to implement at all. Miklos -- 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
