On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> With overlayfs, it is wrong to compare file_inode(inode)->i_sb >>> of regular files with those of non-regular files, because the >>> former reference the real (upper/lower) sb and the latter reference >>> the overlayfs sb. >>> >>> Move the test for same super block after the sanity tests for >>> clone range of directory and non-regular file. >> >> Better: compare ->f_path.dentry->d_sb instead of file_inode()->i_sb. >> We don't want to be mixing files that come from overlayfs and ones >> that come from the underlying layers. > > That's not a good option. > When source file is in lower and dest file is in upper, then clone range > should go forward iff both lower and upper inodes are on the same sb. > The test as it is checks for this properly. > Ping. Do you have any more question about this change? Do you mind queuing this up for next along with the rest of the clone_file_range() changes? It'd be nice to have all xfstests pass for overlayfs on 4.10... >> >> BTW, would it be worthwhile adding clone_file_range() support to overlayfs? >> > > There is nothing to add. It works quite well because clone_file_range works > on inode level. In fact, the entire 'clone' group of xfstests passes > with overlayfs > of lower and upper on the same XFS filesystem (with reflink support). > > Amir. -- 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
