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 09:04:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20080505130447.GA18449@infradead.org> References: <20080505095440.820370974@szeredi.hu> <20080505095528.826574311@szeredi.hu> <20080505113042.GA28997@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, drepper@redhat.com To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:38297 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755923AbYEENFN (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 09:05:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > checks into it aswell, even if that means a little flag telling if > > file->f_mode should be checked or vfs_permission(). > > How would that be better? There's zero commonality between the two > kinds of permission checks (other than utimes_need_permission()). it looks very similar. but actually given that the next patch removes the IS_IMMUTABLE check in the fd case it isn't anymore. You're probably right that it doesn't make sense to move it to the common one.