[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1510230754.29194.6.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 07:32:34 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ron Minnich <rminnich@...dia.gov>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...marydata.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, autofs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] VFS: name lookup improvements.
On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 18:20 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> These three patches address two issues: d_weak_revalidate and
> path_mountpoint lookups.
>
> The former is poorly defined and doesn't actually do the one thing
> that it would be useful for it to do. So the nfs implemention
> is improved, the 9p one discarded, and the documentation clarified.
>
> Given this change and recent change to follow_automount() the
> mountpoint path lookup functions are no longer needed. The regular
> path look functions are quite sufficient.
> The second two patches remove this with detailed explanation of why
> it is OK.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
>
> ---
>
> NeilBrown (3):
> VFS/nfs/9p: revise meaning of d_weak_invalidate.
> VFS: remove user_path_mountpoint_at()
> VFS / autofs4: remove kern_path_mountpoint()
>
>
> Documentation/filesystems/porting | 5 +
> Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt | 11 +--
> fs/9p/vfs_dentry.c | 1
> fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c | 5 -
> fs/internal.h | 1
> fs/namei.c | 150 -------------------------------------
> fs/namespace.c | 2
> fs/nfs/dir.c | 60 ++-------------
> include/linux/namei.h | 1
> 9 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 212 deletions(-)
>
> --
> Signature
>
I love that diffstat and I think the patches and the logic behind them
look reasonable. I'm the one that added d_weak_revalidate and while it
did fix a problem at the time, it has always seemed a bit of an odd
d_op.
Your patch does make me wonder if we should consider merging
d_weak_revalidate and d_revalidate back together, and simply require all
the d_revalidate ops vet the flags more thoroughly.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists