[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [some sanity for a change] possible design issues for hybrids
    On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > No, lookup would just return the dentry, but the dentry would already be
    > filled in with the mount-point information.
    > And you can do that with a simple vfs helper function, ie the filesystem
    > itself would just need to do
    > pseudo_mount(dentry, inode);
    > thing - which just fills in dentry->d_mountpoint with a new vfsmount
    > thing. It would allocate a new root dentry (for the pseudo-mount) and a
    > new vfsmount, and make dentry->d_mountpoint point to it.

    What dentry->d_mountpoint? No such thing...

    Note that we can't get vfsmount by dentry - that's the point of having these
    guys in the first place. So I'm not sure what you are trying to do here -
    dentry + inode is definitely not enough to attach any vfsmounts anywhere.

    That's not about namespaces - same fs mounted in several places will give
    the same problem - one dentry, many vfsmounts. And we obviously *can't*
    have one vfsmount for all of them - if the same fs is mounted on /foo and
    /bar, we will have the same dentry for /foo/splat and /bar/splat. So
    what should we get for /foo/splat/. and /bar/splat/.? Same dentry *and*
    same vfsmount? I'd expect .. from the former to give /foo and from the
    latter - /bar...
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.024 / U:7.428 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site