Re: [fuse-devel] fuse+aufs

2007-07-20 Thread sfjro
Miklos Szeredi: > Yes. And I think there's actually a bug in there. The comment says, > that the attributes are refreshed after a timeout, but that may not > always happen. > > So fuse_permission() should check the attribute validity timeout and > if it has expired, refresh the attributes befor

Re: [fuse-devel] fuse+aufs

2007-07-20 Thread sfjro
Miklos Szeredi: > I have not said that a filesystem must not refresh it's attributes in > ->permission(), but it does not _have_ to do that. It's the > filesystem own private choice, and none of the VFS's business :) I understand that you wrote about the plan to move ->permission. And it indicat

Re: [fuse-devel] fuse+aufs

2007-07-20 Thread sfjro
Miklos Szeredi: > generic_permission() is only called, if the filesystem doesn't define > i_op->permission(). Fuse defines i_op->permission() and fuse_permission() calls generic_permission(). > I've fixed that, by setting n_link to 1 for the root. Is there some > other problem? Tomas wrote th

Re: [fuse-devel] fuse+aufs

2007-07-20 Thread sfjro
Miklos Szeredi: > Which one was that? The only two I see invloving i_uid, are the > sticky check and the O_NOATIME check. generic_permission() is referencing i_uid. According to your opinion, i_uid has to be updated by getattr, hasn't it? Or are you planning to refresh inode before calling gener

Re: [fuse-devel] fuse+aufs

2007-07-20 Thread sfjro
Miklos Szeredi: > And I've shown, that all the other cases are irrelevant. I didn't agree all of them, especially about permission bits and i_uid. > You seem to think, that we've already decided, that the right way to > deal with this is to refresh the attributes on lookup. Not *right* way. Wh

Re: Inclusion in the kernel?

2007-07-20 Thread sfjro
Tomas M: > I respect you don't wish to ask kernel people to include aufs now. But > please consider simply submitting aufs code to LKML; not for inclusion, > but for review. This is the best chance to see VERY VALUABLE feedback > regarding the code from many developers around the world. You wil

Re: Inclusion in the kernel?

2007-07-20 Thread Tomas M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello Russell, > > "Russell Harmon": >> I was just wondering, has anyone tried to get aufs included in the >> kernel? If not, why not? > > Currently, I don't have a plan to ask kernel people to include aufs. > But someday I will try it. > I think I told you this