On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:24:02 -0400 "David P. Quigley" <dpquigl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I may be missing something but I looked at your patch series and I see > no good reason for this patch at all. You just churned a lot of code for > something that you don't even have a need for in the patch set. Your > only two new callers of this function could just as easily have used the > inode since it isn't doing anything special with the dentry. It actually > pulls the inode out of it and uses it in generic_permission and > security_inode_permission. If you are going to change this you should > also change generic_permission as well. Honestly I'd rather see the > dentry requirement removed from inode operations instead but > unfortunately this isn't possible as I found out with my attempts to > remove the dentry requirement for get/setxattr union_permission needs the dentry to get access to d_fsdata, which caches the upperpath and lowerpath which were found at lookup time. Is that what you missed? NeilBrown -- 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
