From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:54572 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730613AbeG3V42 (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:56:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:19:47 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Christian Brauner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arve@android.com, tkjos@android.com, maco@android.com, rlove@google.com, ben@decadent.org.uk Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] file: export functions for binder module Message-ID: <20180730201947.GB12962@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180730143710.14413-1-christian@brauner.io> <20180730163452.GE27761@infradead.org> <20180730201224.GA1081@mailbox.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180730201224.GA1081@mailbox.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:12:24PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > I don't expect this patch to be mergeable but rather to kick-off a > > discussion if we can either simply export them as they are or how we can > > get supportable exports that allow access to struct files_struct. > > Maybe that wasn't obvious from the first message. Is there any way we > can come up with a way to have versions of these functions that you > would be fine with exporting? > The point is that otherwise we would have to either duplicate the code > or come up with something way more complex. If you have any pointer that > would already help. He said in the first reply this should probably be using an anonfd. If you do that, I think all four of these exports go away. And there was really no reason to post each of the four exports as separate patches. That just makes review harder on everyone.