On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:25:58PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:01:23PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > But it does take care of the majority of f_path users that actually want the > > covering path. > > Bloody bad idea, IMO. I have no objections against adding _helpers_ from > that patch (seq_file_path(), etc.), but I really don't like adding that > second struct path there. And it still doesn't fix the issue with > LSM, etc., so we'll _still_ need to fix it sane way. Obviously getting rid of the extra path would be good. But we still have lots of f_path.dentry in filesystems and we need to start with that. struct dentry *file_dentry(struct file *) ? Implemented how? Rename f_inode to f_dentry and reimplement file_inode() based on that. BTW, since nobody is accessing ->f_covering_path directly except the single f_covering_path() helper, it would be extremely easy to get rid of it later. That's why I posted this patch, I think it's simple enough to get it into v4.0 which would fix the majority of cases that people complain about. The thing could even be made dependent on CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS if the addition actually increases the footprint of struct file (I haven't checked). Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
