[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200923060933.GE9538@sol.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:09:33 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>
Cc: "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] fscrypt: Have filesystems handle their d_ops
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 01:01:50AM +0000, Daniel Rosenberg wrote:
> This shifts the responsibility of setting up dentry operations from
> fscrypt to the individual filesystems, allowing them to have their own
> operations while still setting fscrypt's d_revalidate as appropriate.
>
> Most filesystems can just use generic_set_encrypted_ci_d_ops, unless
> they have their own specific dentry operations as well. That operation
> will set the minimal d_ops required under the circumstances.
>
> Since the fscrypt d_ops are set later on, we must set all d_ops there,
> since we cannot adjust those later on. This should not result in any
> change in behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists