Re: [PATCH 6/7] autofs4 - use struct qstr in waitq.c

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:08:40 +0800 Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:24:06 +0800
> > Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > The autofs_wait_queue already contains all of the fields of the
> > > struct qstr, so change it into a qstr.
> > > 
> > > This patch, from Jeff Moyer, has been modified a liitle by myself.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> > 
> > So this patch which had been happily sitting in -mm for a month has
> > suddenly broken because linux-next's three-day-old
> > 4bce7ce7c7d0d57b78dacc3a2bd87ec63b2d9b4c has removed LOOKUP_ACCESS.
> > 
> > This is suboptimal.
> > 
> > Now what do I do?
> 
> Ummm .. I'm confused.
> 
> Your patch autofs4-use-lookup-intent-flags-to-trigger-mounts-fix.patch
> allows the linux-next kernel to build with all the autofs4 patches
> currently posted for inclusion in mm but the patch you mention here
> isn't concerned with the lookup flags?

Yeah, I picked the wrong patch to reply to.

> The removal of LOOKUP_ACCESS is quite interesting. AFAIKS it effectively
> prevents the patch
> autofs4-use-lookup-intent-flags-to-trigger-mounts.patch from also
> resolving an issue with recursive autofs mounts while still resolving
> the issue that the patch was actually meant to address.
> 
> It's hard to get exited about the former issue as Al Viro has NACKed a
> previous patch that added the LOOKUP_ACCESS check, indicating the
> availability of the lookup flags will be changing. Also there is a
> question as to whether autofs will support the use mount points in
> automount maps that themselves refer to an automount path (the recursive
> bit).

So what do we do?

Seems that a great pile of newish-looking stuff hit the vfs tree yesterday.
Al, is that material supposed to be going into 2.6.27?