From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263616AbUEXOUL (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 10:20:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264299AbUEXOUK (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 10:20:10 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:50903 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263616AbUEXOT6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 10:19:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:19:56 +0100 From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk To: "Peter J. Braam" Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "'Phil Schwan'" Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Lustre VFS patch Message-ID: <20040524141956.GC17014@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <20040524114009.96CE13100E2@moraine.clusterfs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040524114009.96CE13100E2@moraine.clusterfs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 07:39:50PM +0800, Peter J. Braam wrote: > vfs-intent_api-vanilla-2.6.patch > > Introduce intents for other operations. Add a file system hook to > release intent data. Make a few "intent versions" of functions such > as "lookup_one_len_it" and "user_walk_it" available through headers. > Arrange that the open intent is visible in the open methods. Add a > few missing intent_init calls. Where is the code using it? Without examples of use there's no way to tell whether it's bogus or not. As it is, it looks like massive hook-adding exercise with no clear goal. The same goes for ..._raw variants of the methods - yes, something in that direction would make sense; however, splitting the codepath on the top level looks like a bloody bad idea. _IF_ we get hooks of that sort, the right thing to do is to provide helpers and make normal filesystems use them, passing current foo_mknod et.al. as callbacks. And in any case, that needs discussing - it's not obvious that "let's take over entire work past lookup of parents" is the best choice here. Again, without examples of users for that stuff you are asking for blind change of API I'm really not comfortable with.