[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070130175219.GA8508@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:52:19 -0500
From: Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@...sunysb.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] fs/unionfs/: Don't duplicate the struct nameidata
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:37:42PM -0500, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > The only fields that we have to watch out for are the dentry and vfsmount.
> > Additionally, this makes Unionfs gentler on the stack as nameidata is rather
> > large.
>
> That's onviously not true at all. To handle any filesystems using intents
> (e.g. NFSv4) you need to do much more. Then again doing things correctly
> doesn't seem to be interesting to the stackable filesystems crowd an this
> problem has been constantly ignored over the last year, including merging
> ecryptfs which has been broken in the same way.
>
> Folks, if you want your stackable filesystem toys taken seriously you
> need to fix these kind of issues instead of talking them away. And yes,
> this will involve some surgery to the VFS.
Indeed. I asked around (#linuxfs) and it seemed that restoring the
dentry/vfsmount was sufficient for the purpose of passing intents down. If
this is not the case, I'll revert the patch to do the full namei allocation.
Josef "Jeff" Sipek.
--
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes.
- Edsger Dijkstra
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists