Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261286AbVAHTmg (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:42:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261288AbVAHTmg (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:42:36 -0500 Received: from [213.146.154.40] ([213.146.154.40]:37075 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261286AbVAHTme (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:42:34 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:42:31 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Al Viro Cc: Roland Dreier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Export get_sb_pseudo()? Message-ID: <20050108194231.GA32285@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , Roland Dreier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <52k6qn229h.fsf@topspin.com> <20050108193101.GD26051@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050108193101.GD26051@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1261 Lines: 26 On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 07:31:01PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:40:10AM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > > I'm planning on implementing some modular driver code and I think it > > makes sense to have a non-mountable pseudofs. Especially with the > > recent MVFS controversy, it seems prudent to find out whether this > > usage would merit exporting get_sb_pseudo(), so I'll describe my > > current plans below. > > No objections; it certainly falls under "general-purpose library > helper". Moreover, in this case I _insist_ on use of normal > export; it is a convenience helper that > a) can be trivially reimplemented by anyone who cares; any > number of filesystems is open-coding far more than that in their > ->get_sb(), so there's nothing to protect here. > b) can be trivially simulated by simple_fill_super() followed > by a bit of tweaking the result. > c) does not shove any pitchforks into the kernel guts - resulting > superblock does not require any special treatment. Agreed. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/