Re: [PATCH] fs: efs: namei: Use __free() over manual resource management

[Maxwell Doose <m32285159@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:58:40 +0200
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:

> On Sat 06-06-26 21:58:15, Maxwell Doose wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 1:20 PM Maxwell Doose <m32285159@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > >
> > > Define a __free() for brelse() called brelease.
> > >
> > > The current code uses manual management of the file buffer heads. Remove
> > > manual brelse statements and initialize bh with __free(brelease)
> > > which removes and modernizes code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxwell Doose <m32285159@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/efs/namei.c | 10 ++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/efs/namei.c b/fs/efs/namei.c
> > > index 38961ee1d1af..ce7794d55e47 100644
> > > --- a/fs/efs/namei.c
> > > +++ b/fs/efs/namei.c
> > > @@ -8,15 +8,15 @@
> > >   */
> > >
> > >  #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
> > > +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> > >  #include <linux/string.h>
> > >  #include <linux/exportfs.h>
> > >  #include "efs.h"
> > >
> > > +DEFINE_FREE(brelease, struct buffer_head *, if (_T) brelse(_T))
> > >
> > >  static efs_ino_t efs_find_entry(struct inode *inode, const char *name, int len)
> > >  {
> > > -       struct buffer_head *bh;
> > > -
> > >         int                     slot, namelen;
> > >         char                    *nameptr;
> > >         struct efs_dir          *dirblock;
> > > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ static efs_ino_t efs_find_entry(struct inode *inode, const char *name, int len)
> > >
> > >         for(block = 0; block < inode->i_blocks; block++) {
> > >
> > > -               bh = sb_bread(inode->i_sb, efs_bmap(inode, block));
> > > +               struct buffer_head *bh __free(brelease) = sb_bread(inode->i_sb,
> > > +                                                                  bfs_bmap(inode, block));  
> > 
> > Made a mistake here while moving :( should be efs_bmap(). Can send a
> > v2 if preferred.  
> 
> Well, that happens but that also shows you didn't even try to compile the
> thing before sending the patch. This is not how the kernel development
> should work, let alone maintenance... Please test your changes before
> sending them.
>

I did and added the fix for it but I think I forgot to amend my commit
:(

>
> Separate thing is that I don't think changes like this to a dead filesystem
> as EFS are really useful. So as others have suggested the most useful
> action you could do for EFS would be to add deprecation notice on kconfig
> and print deprecation message on mount (like we did with other filesystems
> we removed). Set the removal date to the end of 2026 and see if some user
> pops up. Because I suspect nobody used this code for years.
> 

Alright then. If that's the consensus then I can do that.

-- 
best regards,
max