[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804032232.m33MWdZW026800@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:32:39 -0400
From: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ezk@...sunysb.edu,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 01/10] vfs: add path_create() and path_mknod()
In message <E1JhJwR-0008Vv-2x@...az-ex.szeredi.hu>, Miklos Szeredi writes:
[...]
> If it wants to handle that case nicely, it can monitor /proc/mounts
> and reflect it in it's superblock flags. And it can take a write-ref
> on the underlying fs if it has outstanding dirtyness. But we should
> not _rely_ on ecryptfs to ensure that it's never writing to a
> read-only mount.
I'm all for reducing the need for stackable f/s such as ecryptfs from having
to remember to manage the write counts. A stackable filesystem has to
emulate some parts of the VFS when it calls into a lower f/s: in that case,
having useful VFS helpers that do as much of the work as possible, saves a
lot of hassle.
> Miklos
Cheers,
Erez.
--
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