lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 12/15] VFS: Add owner-filesystem positive/negative dentry checks
From
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:42 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
>> I think this is confusing as hell, there needs to be more consistency
>> in the naming. E.g. d_backing_is_positive() vs. d_is_positive(). I
>> know it's the other way round now, but only with a few users.
>
> Yeah. The problem is that all of:
>
> __d_entry_type()
> d_is_miss()
> d_is_whiteout()
> d_can_lookup()
> d_is_autodir()
> d_is_dir()
> d_is_symlink()
> d_is_reg()
> d_is_special()
> d_is_file()
> d_is_negative()
> d_is_positive()
>
> refer to the 'backing' inode (if there is one) in the case that you have a
> unionmount and the top dentry's ->d_inode is NULL. (Well, technically, that
> doesn't happen in the case of directories)

Looks to me we actually need two variants of all of the above, since
most filesystems never want to refer to the backing inode.

>
> Of course, if we decide we aren't going to do unionmount, certain things
> become simpler.
>
>> Also a separate include file might help, that needs explicit including to
>> get the "backing" variants
>
> I would like to see a 'for fs implementer' header and a 'for fs user' header
> but Al didn't like that last time I suggested it.
>
> However, it doesn't help with the naming since there are situations where you
> need *both* - eg. overlayfs.

Not sure what you mean, the naming *must* be different even if we have
two headers and overlayfs can just include both.

Thanks,
Miklos


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-27 16:41    [W:0.085 / U:1.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site