From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [patch 13/15] vfs: utimes cleanup Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 07:30:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20080505113042.GA28997@infradead.org> References: <20080505095440.820370974@szeredi.hu> <20080505095528.826574311@szeredi.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ulrich Drepper To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:42394 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751406AbYEELap (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 07:30:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080505095528.826574311@szeredi.hu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:54:54AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Miklos Szeredi > > Untange the mess that is do_utimes() A good idea to untangle this, but I'm not entirely happy with how it's done. utimes_need_permission is a good helper and fine with me. utimes_common is a good idea aswell, but I'd rather take the permission checks into it aswell, even if that means a little flag telling if file->f_mode should be checked or vfs_permission(). do_fd_utimes sounds fine, but I don't like that name. do_futimes maybe? and when the fd-side is sorted out the path side should probably be a helper aswell. Then sys_utime/sys_utimes/arhc bits could call it directly, with the initial check in do_utimes separated out into a helper ala utimes_need_permission. do_utimes should probably become do_futimesat at the point.