On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:33 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 3:02 PM Alexander Larsson <alexl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > * fh->uuid to layer.
> > > @@ -907,7 +907,7 @@ struct dentry *ovl_lookup(struct inode *dir,
> > > struct dentry *dentry,
> > >
> > > if (!d.stop && ovl_numlower(poe)) {
> > > err = -ENOMEM;
> > > - stack = ovl_stack_alloc(ofs->numlayer - 1);
> > > + stack = ovl_stack_alloc(ovl_numlowerlayer(ofs));
> > > if (!stack)
> > > goto out_put_upper;
> > > }
> >
> > Again, surely ovl_numlower(poe) is a better size here?
>
> Intentional. that is changed in the following patch.
> (to ovl_numlowerlayer(ofs) + 1)
> As the commit message says:
> "Following changes will implement lookup in the data layers."
Still, you might have 10 lower layers in the overlay mount overall, but
this particular parent may only have 1 lower layer, no? So
numlower(poe) would be smaller that numlowerlayer(ofs).
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat,
Inc
alexl@xxxxxxxxxx alexander.larsson@xxxxxxxxx
He's an all-American vegetarian romance novelist who must take
medication
to keep him sane. She's a vivacious extravagent stripper from Mars.
They
fight crime!
