From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f193.google.com ([209.85.220.193]:33052 "EHLO mail-qk0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753952AbcGUUTi (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:19:38 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f193.google.com with SMTP id n202so7182622qke.0 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1469132373.2189.5.camel@poochiereds.net> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] fix overlayfs locks and leases From: Jeff Layton To: Miklos Szeredi , "J. Bruce Fields" , Al Viro Cc: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:19:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1469109216-24353-1-git-send-email-mszeredi@redhat.com> References: <1469109216-24353-1-git-send-email-mszeredi@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 15:53 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > I've split out the writecount handling and changed it around so that > underlying layers are consistent and yet leases work correctly on > overlayfs. > > Also pushed to the tip of > >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git overlayfs-next > > Thanks, > Miklos > --- > > Miklos Szeredi (3): >   locks: fix file locking on overlayfs >   vfs: make argument of d_real_inode() const >   vfs: do get_write_access() on upper layer of overlayfs > >  fs/locks.c              | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >  fs/namespace.c          |  2 +- >  fs/open.c               | 17 +++++++++++++--- >  fs/overlayfs/super.c    |  2 +- >  include/linux/dcache.h  |  5 +++-- >  include/linux/fs.h      | 16 +++++++++++++-- >  include/uapi/linux/fs.h |  1 + >  7 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > Looks pretty sane overall. Also, when I mentioned accessing the writable layer in openwrt in the last set, I forgot that you typically only do reads on it, so the writecount wouldn't be affected in the case of accessing to do backups. So, I'm not sure I had a legit objection to the earlier patch, but I think this looks a little cleaner anyway: Acked-by: Jeff Layton