> > Well, I'd hardly call this whole patchset messing up the kernel, and > > you seemed to agree with most of the patches. > > Of course. Good patches will always again, but preparing for apparmor > is not an excuse for bad patches. It's not an excuse. It's one of *several* reasons for why the patches are good. And no, "help *cleanly* integrate AA" is not a reason against patches. Please try to keep your arguments technical (like code duplication in reiserfs, etc), which are perfectly valid. I don't like the reiserfs duplication, but as I've said, it's needed anyway for some other reason. I can dig out the original patch and include the description in this one if that helps. And yes, all these are cleanups. Recursing into the vfs_ functions from inside the filesystems is plain wrong most of the time. For example fsnotify_change() call in fat_generic_ioctl() would actually *break* after the IS_IMMUTABLE() cleanups, because it's actually calling this function before changing the "SYS" attribute (which is interpreted as immutable) on the inode. So without this cleanup that notify_change() would always fail. 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
