On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 07:18:08AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2010 14:01:51 -0400 > Valerie Aurora <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 09:37:31AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > > On Mon, 3 May 2010 16:12:04 -0700 > > > Valerie Aurora <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Userspace isn't ready for handling another file type, so silently drop > > > > whiteout directory entries before they leave the kernel. > > > > > > Feels very intrusive doesn't it.... > > > > > > Have you considered something like the following? > > > > Hrm, I see how that could be more elegant, but I'd rather avoid yet > > another layer of function pointer passing around. This code is > > already hard enough to review... > > Yes, the extra indirection is a bit of a negative, but I don't think this > patch is harder to review than the alternate. > From a numerical perspective, with this patch you only need to look at the > various places that ->readdir is called to be sure it is always correct. > There are about 3. With the original you need to look at ever filldir > function. Jan has found 9. > > And from a maintainability perspective, I think my approach is safer. Given > that there are 9 filldir functions already, the chance that a need will be > found for another seems good, and the chance that the coder will know to > check for DT_WHT is a best even. Conversely if another call to ->readdir > were added it is likely that nothing would need to be done. > > Of course just counting things doesn't give a completely picture but I think > it can be indicative. Okay, good points. Let me try it out after getting this next rewrite done. Thanks, -VAL -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
