From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] fix overlayfs locks and leases Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:19:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1469132373.2189.5.camel@poochiereds.net> References: <1469109216-24353-1-git-send-email-mszeredi@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1469109216-24353-1-git-send-email-mszeredi@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Miklos Szeredi , "J. Bruce Fields" , Al Viro Cc: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org 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. >=20 > Also pushed to the tip of >=20 > =C2=A0 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git= overlayfs-next >=20 > Thanks, > Miklos > --- >=20 > Miklos Szeredi (3): > =C2=A0 locks: fix file locking on overlayfs > =C2=A0 vfs: make argument of d_real_inode() const > =C2=A0 vfs: do get_write_access() on upper layer of overlayfs >=20 > =C2=A0fs/locks.c=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0| 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------= ------------- > =C2=A0fs/namespace.c=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0|=C2=A0=C2=A02 +- > =C2=A0fs/open.c=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0| 17 +++++++++++++--- > =C2=A0fs/overlayfs/super.c=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0|=C2=A0=C2=A02 +- > =C2=A0include/linux/dcache.h=C2=A0=C2=A0|=C2=A0=C2=A05 +++-- > =C2=A0include/linux/fs.h=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0| 16 ++++= +++++++++-- > =C2=A0include/uapi/linux/fs.h |=C2=A0=C2=A01 + > =C2=A07 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) >=20 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