> > > Looks correct but I don't think it's a good idea. Spreading more logic > > > into filesystems without a good reason is rarely a good idea. > > > > (Thanks for the review, Christoph) > > > > Agreed completely, but vfs_* aren't for filesystems to call, rather > > for entities calling _into_ filesystems from the outside. This is > > actually a very rare thing, so adding some extra logic for the sake of > > cleanliness should be OK. > > > > Now it can be argued, that cgroup_clone() is calling into the > > filesystem from the outside. But it's not really doing that, rather > > it's making an internal modification to a specific filesystem, > > triggered by some external action. > > I don't think that matters. We're not about overly strict layering, and > especialy this kind where you call into a higher layer to get back into > the lower one is not harmful at all. For cgroup it's only a small > duplication, but e.g. I don't really like all the duplications in the > reiserfs case. I think there's some good reasons, other than just to get rid of the vfs recursion. I took this change from Jeff Mahoney's patchset. > Unless we have a very good reason why the useage of the > vfs_ function should go away from the filesystem code I don't think > we want this. We do have a good reason: r/o bind mounts and AppArmor. And please don't tell me, you also think that moving the security hooks to callers is a good idea ;) That would actually be a change with a much larger impact, both in terms of code duplication and of verifying correctness. 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
