From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] VFS: Add owner-filesystem positive/negative dentry checks Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:42:37 +0000 Message-ID: <12393.1427467357@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <20150325144330.17670.6959.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20150325144524.17670.21070.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-ID: <12392.1427467357.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, "linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org" , Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org Miklos Szeredi wrote: > I think this is confusing as hell, there needs to be more consistency > in the naming. E.g. d_backing_is_positive() vs. d_is_positive(). I > know it's the other way round now, but only with a few users. Yeah. The problem is that all of: __d_entry_type() d_is_miss() d_is_whiteout() d_can_lookup() d_is_autodir() d_is_dir() d_is_symlink() d_is_reg() d_is_special() d_is_file() d_is_negative() d_is_positive() refer to the 'backing' inode (if there is one) in the case that you have a unionmount and the top dentry's ->d_inode is NULL. (Well, technically, that doesn't happen in the case of directories) Of course, if we decide we aren't going to do unionmount, certain things become simpler. > Also a separate include file might help, that needs explicit including to > get the "backing" variants I would like to see a 'for fs implementer' header and a 'for fs user' header but Al didn't like that last time I suggested it. However, it doesn't help with the naming since there are situations where you need *both* - eg. overlayfs. > and which would have big fat warnings all over. Well, we could argue about which side should have the warnings. David