On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 05:07:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I agree with you that supporting named streams within a file requires > an independent inode for each stream. I disagree with you that this is > dentry cache infrastructure. I do not believe in giving each stream > its own dentry. Either they share the default stream's dentry, or they > have no dentry (mild preference for no dentry). *blink* Just how would they have different inodes while sharing a dentry? > > The fact that ADS inodes would not be in the dentry cache and hence > > not visible to pathwalks at all then means that all of the issues > > such as mounting over them, chroot, etc don't exist in the first > > place... > > Wait, you've now switched from "this is dentry cache infrastructure" > to "it should not be in the dentry cache". So I don't understand what > you're arguing for. Bloody wonderful, that. So now we have struct file instances with no dentry associated with them? Which would have to be taken into account all over the place...
