From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758616AbYEENNT (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 09:13:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755111AbYEENNL (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 09:13:11 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:57809 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754973AbYEENNK (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 09:13:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 14:13:08 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Enrico Weigelt Cc: linux kernel list Subject: Re: VFS + path walktrough Message-ID: <20080505131307.GM5882@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20080505124041.GB32019@nibiru.local> <20080505130623.GC32019@nibiru.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080505130623.GC32019@nibiru.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 03:06:23PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > We could just add another call vector to struct file_operations, > as replacement for link_path_walk() - if it's zero, the original > function is used. This way an filesystem can do the walktrough > by it's own, but doesn't need to. > > > What do you think about this ? That you have quite forgotten about mounts. And we *REALLY* don't want to shift the entire logics of link_path_walk() into filesystems - this is insane. Even "let's follow that symlink" part alone, not to mention mountpoint handling, populating dcache, etc.