On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:42 PM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think this is confusing as hell, there needs to be more consistency >> in the naming. E.g. d_backing_is_positive() vs. d_is_positive(). I >> know it's the other way round now, but only with a few users. > > Yeah. The problem is that all of: > > __d_entry_type() > d_is_miss() > d_is_whiteout() > d_can_lookup() > d_is_autodir() > d_is_dir() > d_is_symlink() > d_is_reg() > d_is_special() > d_is_file() > d_is_negative() > d_is_positive() > > refer to the 'backing' inode (if there is one) in the case that you have a > unionmount and the top dentry's ->d_inode is NULL. (Well, technically, that > doesn't happen in the case of directories) Looks to me we actually need two variants of all of the above, since most filesystems never want to refer to the backing inode. > > Of course, if we decide we aren't going to do unionmount, certain things > become simpler. > >> Also a separate include file might help, that needs explicit including to >> get the "backing" variants > > I would like to see a 'for fs implementer' header and a 'for fs user' header > but Al didn't like that last time I suggested it. > > However, it doesn't help with the naming since there are situations where you > need *both* - eg. overlayfs. Not sure what you mean, the naming *must* be different even if we have two headers and overlayfs can just include both. 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
