From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD 0/4] AppArmor - Don't pass NULL nameidata to vfs_create/lookup/permission IOPs
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:15:30 +0100
Message-ID: <20070630091530.GC21784@infradead.org>
References: <20070626231510.883881222@suse.de> <1182901575.12836.54.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: jjohansen@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Return-path: <linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1182901575.12836.54.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> I don't object to the concept per se, but could you please give it a
> more descriptive name please? "struct vfs_intent" would be a lot more
> accurate than "nameidata2".

Agreed, but I prefer lookup_intent - intent by itself is a word with
just to wide useage and vfs doesn't make it much clearer..