On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 21:02 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Morton writes: > > 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 permission() has been replaced by inode_permission() without nameidata 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. > > Shortly I'm going to post fixes which include Hugh's stuff and more. Sorry > for the delay. > > > 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? > > Some of my upcoming patches begin to address this (took longer than > expected): > > - extracting all whiteout related code into callable methods in unionfs, so > that I can "drop in" the new whiteout code that Bharata et al. are > reportedly working on. I really hope to see some new whiteout code in -mm > soon. Bharata? > > - reworking the lookup code to handle vfsmounts: this'll be needed when we > switch from vfs_* to path_* (Miklos's patches). > > As for other fundamental issues, I've been posting some suggestions in > recent months. For example > > - the need for cleaner handling of vma->fault(), a relatively minor patch I > posted, based on hch's LSF08 suggestions. Got no response from any of the > VFS folks. > > - a post I made regarding suggestions on how to handle lower f/s changes, > based on Viro's LSF08 comments: to have a superblock level writers count > (I suggested that it's a superset of the superblock->s_vfs_rename_mutex, > and perhaps be elevated to be one). Again, got no responses from anyone > on the VFS team.
Erez, do you have links to email threads or a commentary of the things that are causing concern somewhere? I spotted one but it seems light on for descriptive value (or maybe it's me who's light on for understanding, ;)). > > So I'm not sure how much the VFS guys have time now to review such patches > and help me address these issues. We can't seem to get through even simpler > issues, nor get simple patches merged (ala the copy_inode_size) despite > repeated attempts. Yeah, life is like that a lot for me too. But why not assume that, given a reasonable amount of time, a "no response" is equivalent to a "no complaints" and push on with the updates. Sooner or later someone who cares enough will take a look and give the needed feedback. Ian _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
