From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751538AbeDERpU (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2018 13:45:20 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:55073 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750786AbeDERpS (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2018 13:45:18 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/ylc/B4HjHbBccz1vYGSPYZdS7fGJJXBYYFoFcBmzDpTsy+ztqA29UmlyCTzXCoqHxokogZQ== From: Christian Brauner X-Google-Original-From: Christian Brauner Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 19:45:15 +0200 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Al Viro , "Eric W. Biederman" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 RESEND] namei: add follow_up_bind() Message-ID: <20180405174455.GA27462@gmail.com> References: <20180405105103.21572-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:28:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Christian Brauner > wrote: > > > > This series adds: > > - follow_up_bind() to namei.{c,h} > > - switches fs/nfsd/vfs.c:follow_to_parent() to use follow_up_bind() > > - switches fs/devpts/inode.c:devpts_mntget() to use follow_up_bind() > > Hmm. Seems fair enough to me, although I wonder how much this really > helps. It does get rid of a duplicate code pattern, but: > > 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > and while some of that is just the new comment, some of it is just "overhead". Fwiw, it does get read of these while loops in two places but I personally see the biggest value in making it obvious what bind-mount resolution means. > > It's also a bit odd how the new helper is marked "inline", but nobody > will inline it because it's not actually in the header file or any of > the isers in the same C file. So instead, it has to be exported. I > wonder if it should just be a trivial inline in ? Maybe > it originally was, and that's where the inline came from, and then > Christian decided to make it be by the regular "follow_up()" instead? I head it inline first but it would have required to forward declare struct vfsmount in the head and I wasn't sure if that was going to fly. But I explicitly left the inline in there because I was following user_path_create() ([1], [2]) which does the same. But if that's an issue I can make it static inline in the header like I had, forward declare struct vfsmount and remove the unnecessary inline from user_path_create() in a separate patch unless there's a specific reason to leave it in there. [1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/namei.h#L79 [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/namei.c#L3680 > > But with all that said, I certainly don't *mind* the patch series. Cool. Thanks! Christian > > Al, I'm leaving this up to you, and expect to get it from your vfs > tree eventually. Or not. > > Linus