On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote: > Hm, I suspect it's more complicated than this. I looked at how > unionfs does it in init_lower_nd() and it requires poking around in > VFS internal details in the file system implementation. So unioning > code is not in the VFS, but VFS code is in the union fs. Progress? I > dunno. Definitely not progress. Progress would be if the intents mess would go away. Which Al's been working on for what, one, two years? Until that's cleared up it's pointless to add hacks like that (which in actual fact don't make much sense anyway, NFS will work fine without the intents stuff most of the time, only perhaps suboptimally). > > "Fortunately" NFS isn't good for a writable layer of a union for other > > reasons, so this isn't a big concern at the moment. > > It's the long-term effect on the code structure that concerns me more. Nameidata in any filesystem operation should not be in the long term design structure (well, in follow_link() it was OK while it was used recursiveley, now it's flattened out, it would also be cleaner if it didn't get the nameidata). Thanks, 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
