From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] vfs: atomic open RFC Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:01:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20120313120137.GA21755@infradead.org> References: <1331155362-11132-1-git-send-email-miklos@szeredi.hu> <20120313095102.GA27480@infradead.org> <87y5r49362.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, sfrench@samba.org, sage@newdream.net, ericvh@gmail.com To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y5r49362.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:00:05PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Do we really need the opendata structure? > > > > It seems like we could just pass a struct path instead of the dentry > > passed directly and the vfsmount in it. There should be no need to > > preallocate the file before calling into ->atomic_open, as it's only > > used to pass around f_flags - but we already pass that one to > > ->atomic_open directly and might as well pass it on to finish_open and > > allocate the file there. > > We really don't want to get into the situation where the open fails > after a successful create(*). Which means the file needs to be allocated > prior to calling ->atomic_open and needs to be passed to finish_open() > toghether with the vfsmount and dentry. > > In the first version of the patch I set filp->f_path.mnt to nd->path.mnt > and passed the half initialized filp to ->atomic_open. But then decided > that it's confusing for the filesystem code to deal with a half baked > filp (does it need to be fput on error? etc...) > > Doing it with an opaque opendata makes this cleaner I think. Make sense. Can you throw in another cleanup patch to really just make it a pass-through and not also use it as a boolean flag if open_flags should be obeyed? This probably will change sematincs for the various filesystems, but given that they should behave the same way that's a good thing.