On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:45 AM, Ernesto A. Fernández ernesto.mnd.fernandez@gmail.com wrote:
--- a/fs/hfsplus/inode.c +++ b/fs/hfsplus/inode.c @@ -276,6 +276,19 @@ static int hfsplus_setattr(struct dentry *dentry, struct iattr *attr) return 0; }
+int hfsplus_getattr(const struct path *path, struct kstat *stat,
u32 request_mask, unsigned int query_flags)+{
struct inode *inode = d_backing_inode(path->dentry);I think d_inode() is better. They work the same, but "normal filesystems should not use this", according to the d_backing_inode() documentation.
Right, definitely. I copied it from vfs_getattr_nosec() without thinking about it much. I see how David Howells put that d_backing_inode() there, but still don't understand it.
@@ -335,6 +348,7 @@ int hfsplus_file_fsync(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end,
static const struct inode_operations hfsplus_file_inode_operations = { .setattr = hfsplus_setattr,
.getattr = hfsplus_getattr, .listxattr = hfsplus_listxattr,#ifdef CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS_POSIX_ACL .get_acl = hfsplus_get_posix_acl, -- 2.9.0
What about symlinks and special files?
My mistake again, thanks for pointing that out. Doing the symlinks correctly here would actually add a bit more complexity as they use the generic page_symlink_inode_operations at the moment.
I think I'd rather just retract this patch and let someone else handle it if they actually want this feature. I only added it because it seemed trivial to do, but that was clearly not true. ;-)
Arnd