On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:05 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:08 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Rename lower_layers[] array to layers[], extend its size by one > > and initialize layers[0] with upper layer values. > > Lower layers are now addressed with index 1..numlower. > > layers[0] is reserved even with lower only overlay. > > > > This gets rid of special casing upper layer in ovl_iterate_real(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > - lower_layer = ovl_layer_lower(dentry); > > + lower_layer = ovl_dentry_layer(dentry); > > I find this confusing. I expected ovl_dentry_layer() to be an > analogue of ovl_dentry_real(), but it's not: it will return upper > layer if there's no lower layer, not the other way round. > > How about keeping the ovl_layer_lower() helper and open code the new > behavior at the single point where it would be used? I can make that > change if you ACK that I didn't miss anything. I agree. I noticed this myself and had a mental note to get back to this, but the mental note got lost. Thanks, Amir.
