On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:14:24AM -0700, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>
> [..]
>> > @@ -836,6 +836,15 @@ struct inode *ovl_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, struct dentry *upperdentry,
>> > if (index)
>> > ovl_set_flag(OVL_INDEX, inode);
>> >
>> > + if (upperdentry) {
>> > + err = ovl_check_metacopy_xattr(upperdentry);
>> > + if (err < 0)
>> > + goto out_err;
>> > + metacopy = err;
>> > + if (!metacopy)
>> > + ovl_set_flag(OVL_UPPERDATA, inode);
>> > + }
>> > +
>>
>> There is no reason to ovl_check_metacopy_xattr again here, right?
>> so it should get the same treatment as upperredirect.
>> This would make 3 new arguments to ovl_get_inode added by your patch set.
>>
>> How about initializing this struct during lookup and passing it into
>> ovl_get_inode()?:
>
> How about just creating another structure to pass in parameters to
> ovl_get_inode() and then let it extract relevant info and initialize
> inode. Something like this.
Its definitely better than current state of affairs.
Thanks,
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
