> I probably missed something important, but what's wrong with
> approach d_path() is using now - returning pointer into middle of buffer?
The lack of precize documentation. The fact that it's not obvious (at
least to me) what happens if the buffer is too small. And the fact
that the routine seem to add " (deleted)" in some cases to the
buffer, to my knowledge in a way you can't easily know if it's
part of the file name or not.
> returned_path_pointer = d_path(dentry, buffer, buffer_length);
> len = buffer + buffer_length - returned_path_pointer
That can be useful, however, and that will not need the additional
memory move I do in my version.
