From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add flags option to get xattr method paired to __vfs_getxattr Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:48:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20190813084801.GA972@kroah.com> References: <20190812193320.200472-1-salyzyn@android.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190812193320.200472-1-salyzyn@android.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-mtd" Errors-To: linux-mtd-bounces+gldm-linux-mtd-36=gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Mark Salyzyn Cc: Latchesar Ionkov , Dave Kleikamp , jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Martin Brandenburg , samba-technical@lists.samba.org, Dominique Martinet , Chao Yu , Mimi Zohar , linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Chris Mason , "David S. Miller" , Andreas Dilger , Eric Paris , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, Mike Marshall , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Gruenbacher , Sage Weil , Miklos Szeredi , Richard Weinberger , Mark Fasheh , Hugh On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 12:32:49PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote: > --- a/include/linux/xattr.h > +++ b/include/linux/xattr.h > @@ -30,10 +30,10 @@ struct xattr_handler { > const char *prefix; > int flags; /* fs private flags */ > bool (*list)(struct dentry *dentry); > - int (*get)(const struct xattr_handler *, struct dentry *dentry, > + int (*get)(const struct xattr_handler *handler, struct dentry *dentry, > struct inode *inode, const char *name, void *buffer, > - size_t size); > - int (*set)(const struct xattr_handler *, struct dentry *dentry, > + size_t size, int flags); > + int (*set)(const struct xattr_handler *handler, struct dentry *dentry, > struct inode *inode, const char *name, const void *buffer, > size_t size, int flags); Wow, 7 arguments. Isn't there some nice rule of thumb that says once you get more then 5, a function becomes impossible to understand? Surely this could be a structure passed in here somehow, that way when you add the 8th argument in the future, you don't have to change everything yet again? :) I don't have anything concrete to offer as a replacement fix for this, but to me this just feels really wrong... thanks, greg k-h ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/