Re: [PATCH -mm] unionfs: build fixes

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

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:12:47 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:

> Get unionfs building and working in mmotm with the 2.6.27-rc1 VFS changes:
> permission() has been replaced by inode_permission() without nameidata arg;
> unionfs_permission() without nameidata arg; vfs_symlink() without mode arg;
> LOOKUP_ACCESS no longer defined; and kmem_cache_create() no longer passes
> kmem_cachep to the init_once() constructor.
> 
> Note: while okay for inclusion in -mm for now, unionfs_permission() mods
> will need review and perhaps correction by Erez: without a nameidata arg,
> some locking vanishes from unionfs_permission(), and a MNT_NOEXEC check on
> its lower_inode; I have not studied the VFS changes enough to tell whether
> that amounts to a real issue for unionfs, or just removal of dead code.

thanks.

> This should follow git-unionfs.patch
> I notice my unionfs-fix-memory-leak.patch
> and fsstack-fsstack_copy_inode_size-locking.patch
> are currently commented out, yet I don't recall the
> mm-commits dispatch rider bringing me a telegram to explain why?

git-unionfs got commented out because of some upstream git (or build)
catastrophe.  So its fixes got comemnted out too.  Then git-unionfs was
restored but I forgot to manually restore the followon fixes.  It
happens.

I must say that I'm not really sure why we're struggling along with
unionfs.  Last I heard there were fundamental, unresolveable design
disagreements with the VFS guys.  Those issues should be where 100% of
the effort is being devoted, but instead we seem to be cruising along
in a different direction?