On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 10:08 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Sorry for the claptrap. I'm going to resubmit this one more time
> with some slight modifications and additions, and it'd be really nice
> if you or other interested parties would provide comments and opinions
> (either way), because I don't think me and Al have anything new to say
> to each other.
I was trying to stay out of it a bit, since you both have very good
points. :)
But, from a purely aesthetic point of view, I like the patches. They do
make r/o mount detection less error-prone in coding. They also remove
more code than they add.
I also certainly understand Al's point about why it puts vfsmounts in a
place where they probably shouldn't be exposed.
Is there a way we could pass around a vfs-internal object to these
things? Maybe something that is like an opaque token only known to the
vfs?
linux/mount.h:
struct hidden_mount;
fs/namespace.c:
struct hidden_mount {
struct vfsmount *mnt;
};
int mnt_want_write(struct hidden_mount *hidmnt)
{
return __mnt_want_write(hidmnt->mnt);
}
We could have *that* passed down the way that you're currently passing
the vfsmount.
-- Dave
--
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
