It seems that your reply to [0/5] has the description that I was asking for in my last response. On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 14:11 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > 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-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- 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
