From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:56892 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754714AbeFRP3v (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:29:51 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20180618122709.2dims4vjfa26drb3@merlin> References: <20180618122709.2dims4vjfa26drb3@merlin> To: Goldwyn Rodrigues Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Do we need DCACHE_WHITEOUT_TYPE? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <19225.1529335789.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:29:49 +0100 Message-ID: <19226.1529335789@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > There are some DCACHE_*_TYPE which are not used. I assume they were > added during the development of overlayfs/unionfs and do not seem to > make sense to keep. Yes, Al started passing the patches for unionmounts upstream, then Linus went and plonked overlayfs in there which broke unionmounts in a number of ways, so these can be cleaned up. (Though I suggest that overlayfs should probably set the DCACHE_WHITEOUT_TYPE on whiteouts). > Should we revert the following commits? > > 155e35d4daa8 ("VFS: Introduce inode-getting helpers for layered/unioned fs environments") > e7f7d2253c05 ("VFS: Add a whiteout dentry type") > df1a085af1f6 ("VFS: Add a fallthrough flag for marking virtual dentries") The last one can definitely be reverted. The second one possibly, though overlayfs should possibly be using it. The first one, I'm not sure - parts of that overlayfs might be using. > Are there any more commits related or during this merge which are not > relevant anymore? Possibly; I'll try and find some time to go through them. David