From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] vfs: Don't allow overwriting mounts in the current mount namespace
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:43:34 -0800
Message-ID: <87ios4gjq1.fsf@xmission.com>
References: <CAJfpegsxgnSRUW-E5HM3uT5QfGyUtn_v=i4Ppkkkutp34287AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a9kkax0j.fsf@xmission.com>
	<CAJfpeguv+7giYNpAuXE9Ja_9BEwB0-fZBVgRSeVqpzSXgQYZ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<8761v7h2pt.fsf@tw-ebiederman.twitter.com>
	<CAJfpegtT7y-1HhbEVAMKkdQugTG_w7G_epGtQHGvQLpcZB5FVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87li281wx6.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <87ob28kqks.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
	<8761ogkqhl.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
	<20140218171252.GC4026@tucsk.piliscsaba.szeredi.hu>
	<87ha7wrtyz.fsf@xmission.com>
	<CA+55aFx8nksLjQt3aECVk2Ni5FNPXxL988mEqfFgqbbubZho6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140219132319.79bc3b26bad00a513880d207@canb.auug.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140219132319.79bc3b26bad00a513880d207@canb.auug.org.au>
	(Stephen Rothwell's message of "Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:23:19 +1100")
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:

> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:20:29 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> For this kind of function return value it actually tends to work very
>> well, and in fact often generates slightly better code than "int". So
>> I don't _hate_ bool, and we've certainly had a lot more use creep in
>> lately, but I also don't really see "bool" as much of an upside.
>
> And in function declarations, it makes it very obvious that the function
> is not one of our "return 0 or -ERROR" ones.

So I played with this instance in particular.  The only difference winds
up being by the bool version uses byte instructions on %al and %bl
instead of their 32 bit interger equivalents on %eax and %ebx.

I also benchmarked the difference and on the most sensitive test I could
find.  will-it-scale/unlink2 (aka create,close,unlink each process in a
separate directory).  There were no measurable performance differences.

So for purposes of better documentation I have changed the function, and
I will repost my patches shortly.

Eric