From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C04EC433E0 for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 04:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC93206F6 for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 04:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Do/2XryE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387592AbgEWEHq (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 May 2020 00:07:46 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:36903 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726065AbgEWEHq (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 May 2020 00:07:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1590206865; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F1bhCGQtRl8cBs0zYrkz/5FLXJrqBYq5wZlx9jEG8Uc=; b=Do/2XryEjbVWZpL7OTuXVJu/mp33opSIiMLK8i/Cxtedy2/YeQzuXj/f6F3zJOzc+B8Lz/ zdVZekomj90/phLYp7bnaQlXrsXH9TL1gQJ91I/L04X1F0VxLOkFusT60fjlInKeH5K7J1 JztILyaVLdzNmKc2ij9IkZYkwYWaL7o= Received: from mail-qk1-f199.google.com (mail-qk1-f199.google.com [209.85.222.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-274-4m5kSomCMTavDXH7L-4JDQ-1; Sat, 23 May 2020 00:07:40 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4m5kSomCMTavDXH7L-4JDQ-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id n187so694552qkd.10 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F1bhCGQtRl8cBs0zYrkz/5FLXJrqBYq5wZlx9jEG8Uc=; b=Urflm91NySlG0JHxyUG6idXA7YQhQGQHj4bzSvohSXS9EMT44EsL+jBTwB8V7hE1M1 N4h7o44dzh7bNRz3QI4iwtanh/D3CvX9S58aAgoAiMgL6D848GzNRhCogCGfWptbxiKk Ergicr5b4BUS0MZ8L3Xkjau2iNfcJZsAcXPSwq+oAxm1TiWl3MkoRYK7QxvabojkFodt DaQ+YpGoJH/2DxfC9JknKLO71R5DACpP7JduOw1vZuK7LfazBQ58iRGqpCPr5rWWZ9qs bHAMLpVdjVQe/75In7uiar2sx69DdVhvm5j8gCQino11WANQbIpF4y1Grm3MWu1BOgSa 4NXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304k4zLdRRK7ttJQWlj2egjjbwI6RMwGgkRYN+dhgmE8/3u6zlA ek4ssjUwmurjFZDrzOzJBFSBUNFzsUmYlBB5QPRynsunqoyni8lll6x5hFcObi20ihwkCpCqzjh 7Y+xMsClv+antmpnfK/DYK5ZL+k+LGboFfJTwFKs1vw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:270a:: with SMTP id n10mr17623767qkn.288.1590206860004; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqucE/BLDWAWbsUb5BS4pFv+/cIpYb0lPmqP/rcpvyVgWQsH8wbXFsAUfUqER06Q9HPajqCxqlT56dHPAxYvs= X-Received: by 2002:a37:270a:: with SMTP id n10mr17623751qkn.288.1590206859751; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:07:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200522085723.29007-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20200522160815.GT23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200522195626.GV23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20200522195626.GV23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 06:07:28 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ovl: make private mounts longterm To: Al Viro Cc: Amir Goldstein , overlayfs , linux-fsdevel , lkml Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:56 PM Al Viro wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 08:53:49PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Right, we should just get rid of ofs->upper_mnt and ofs->upperdir_trap > > and use ofs->layers[0] to store those. > > For that you'd need to allocate ->layers before you get to ovl_get_upper(), > though. I'm not saying it's a bad idea - doing plain memory allocations > before anything else tends to make failure exits cleaner; it's just that > it'll take some massage. Basically, do ovl_split_lowerdirs() early, > then allocate everything you need, then do lookups, etc., filling that > stuff. That was exactly the plan I set out. > Regarding this series - the points regarding the name choice and the > need to document the calling conventions change still remain. Agreed. Thanks, Miklos