On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:12:47 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Get unionfs building and working in mmotm with the 2.6.27-rc1 VFS changes: > permission() has been replaced by inode_permission() without nameidata arg; > unionfs_permission() without nameidata arg; vfs_symlink() without mode arg; > LOOKUP_ACCESS no longer defined; and kmem_cache_create() no longer passes > kmem_cachep to the init_once() constructor. > > Note: while okay for inclusion in -mm for now, unionfs_permission() mods > will need review and perhaps correction by Erez: without a nameidata arg, > some locking vanishes from unionfs_permission(), and a MNT_NOEXEC check on > its lower_inode; I have not studied the VFS changes enough to tell whether > that amounts to a real issue for unionfs, or just removal of dead code. thanks. > This should follow git-unionfs.patch > I notice my unionfs-fix-memory-leak.patch > and fsstack-fsstack_copy_inode_size-locking.patch > are currently commented out, yet I don't recall the > mm-commits dispatch rider bringing me a telegram to explain why? git-unionfs got commented out because of some upstream git (or build) catastrophe. So its fixes got comemnted out too. Then git-unionfs was restored but I forgot to manually restore the followon fixes. It happens. I must say that I'm not really sure why we're struggling along with unionfs. Last I heard there were fundamental, unresolveable design disagreements with the VFS guys. Those issues should be where 100% of the effort is being devoted, but instead we seem to be cruising along in a different direction? _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
