hi,

> My objection to your suggestion of having each fs roll its own is that we 
> have five routines doing the same thing (local fs's) and four routines all 
> doing the same thing (remote fs's) different from the first thing. We have 
> nine routines working out two behaviors.
> 
> It sounds both cleaner and easier to maintain to just have those routines
> either call one of two common routines, or call one common routine that
> supports the two behaviors.

what routines are you talking about?

did you read the following comment in my patch?
are you talking about something different?

+	/*
+	 * XXX
+	 * this chunk of the code is common between some filesystems
+	 * which rely on side effects of lookup.
+	 * probably it's better to make this into a subroutine.
+	 */

YAMAMOTO Takashi