Ian Kent wrote:
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permission() has been replaced by inode_permission() without nameidata arg;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, ;)).
Erez,
Can't you help me out here?
A brief summary of claimed, fixed and planned to be fixed issues would
be really good.
Ian
_______________________________________________
unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/
unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
