lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [take 3] pohmelfs: call for inclusion
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:28:12PM +0000, Al Viro (viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk) wrote:
> Sigh... I wish it hadn't been an English-speaking maillist; mat is hard to
> translate properly...

Argh, undecency is pretty useful /most of the time/frequently/

> OK, let me try for a printable version: suppose we replace that d_path()
> call with dentry_path() and leave everything else as is; what exactly
> will be broken and how will it break?

I didn't understand you at first. Replacing it with dentry_path() will
not break anything. It was not supposed fs should care about chroot for
this case - every application (including chrooted) writes into own
namespace, so if it changes root, it is on its own...

> > When object was written via remounted path, then it is a problem for
> > those who made a setup - this ugly hack only 'works' in specially
> > crafted environment, which provides its pros and requires fair price of
> > cons.
>
> _What_ remounted path? I'm not talking about bindings at all...

I believe you will?

Actually if this useful hack is so much a PITA I will drop it. Or fix
with dentry_path() instead. It doesn't really deserve _that_ much.

--
Evgeniy Polyakov


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-21 23:43    [W:0.048 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site