From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Best way of getting a pathname for error reporting?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:13:46 +0100
Message-ID: <20120420181346.GJ6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <E1SLIG5-00028f-IV@tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:56596 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755712Ab2DTSNt (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:13:49 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1SLIG5-00028f-IV@tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 02:08:37PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> I wonder if we would be better off simply exporting dentry_path(),
> perhaps as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, with a warning that it should only be used
> for debugging purposes, or some such.  I suspect it's not worth changing
> all of the inode_ops interfaces to pass in a struct path intead of a
> struct dentry if it's only to be used for debugging.  Or maybe I should
> just keep on doing these ugly things and justify them because it's only
> for debugging (yelch).
> 
> What do you think?

Just use dentry_path_raw() - it _is_ exported and the only difference is
the lack of //deleted for unlinked ones.