From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3 0/4] fs: Support for LOOKUP_NONBLOCK / RESOLVE_NONBLOCK
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:54:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210104165430.GI3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a51a2db9-716a-be20-5f71-5180394a992b@kernel.dk>
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 07:43:17AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > I've not put it into #for-next yet; yell if you see any problems with that
> > branch, or it'll end up there ;-)
>
> Thanks Al - but you picked out of v3, not v4. Not that there are huge
> changes between the two, from the posting of v4:
>
> - Rename LOOKUP_NONBLOCK -> LOOKUP_CACHED, and ditto for the RESOLVE_
> flag. This better explains what the feature does, making it more self
> explanatory in terms of both code readability and for the user visible
> part.
>
> - Remove dead LOOKUP_NONBLOCK check after we've dropped LOOKUP_RCU
> already, spotted by Al.
>
> - Add O_TMPFILE to the checks upfront, so we can drop the checking in
> do_tmpfile().
>
> and it sounds like you did the last two when merging yourself.
Yes - back when I'd posted that review.
> I do like
> LOOKUP_CACHED better than LOOKUP_NONBLOCK, mostly for the externally
> self-documenting feature of it. What do you think?
Agreed, especially since _NONBLOCK would confuse users into assumption
that operation is actually non-blocking...
> Here's the v4 posting, fwiw:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20201217161911.743222-1-axboe@kernel.dk/
Sorry, picked from the local branch that sat around since Mid-December ;-/
Fixed. Another change: ..._child part in unlazy_child() is misleading -
it might as well be used for .. traversal, where dentry is usually the
_parent_ of nd->path.dentry. The real constraint here is that dentry/seq pair
had been valid next position at some point during the RCU walk. Renamed to
try_to_unlazy_next(), (hopefully) fixed the comment...
Updated variant force-pushed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-04 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-14 19:13 [PATCHSET v3 0/4] fs: Support for LOOKUP_NONBLOCK / RESOLVE_NONBLOCK Jens Axboe
2020-12-14 19:13 ` [PATCH 1/4] fs: make unlazy_walk() error handling consistent Jens Axboe
2020-12-14 19:13 ` [PATCH 2/4] fs: add support for LOOKUP_NONBLOCK Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 12:24 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-12-15 15:29 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 15:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-12-15 15:37 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 16:08 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 16:14 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-12-15 18:44 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 18:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-12-15 19:03 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 19:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-12-15 19:38 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-16 2:36 ` Al Viro
2020-12-16 3:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-16 2:43 ` Al Viro
2020-12-16 3:32 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-14 19:13 ` [PATCH 3/4] fs: expose LOOKUP_NONBLOCK through openat2() RESOLVE_NONBLOCK Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 22:25 ` Dave Chinner
2020-12-15 22:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-12-15 23:25 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-16 2:37 ` Al Viro
2020-12-16 3:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-12-14 19:13 ` [PATCH 4/4] io_uring: enable LOOKUP_NONBLOCK path resolution for filename lookups Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 3:06 ` [PATCHSET v3 0/4] fs: Support for LOOKUP_NONBLOCK / RESOLVE_NONBLOCK Linus Torvalds
2020-12-15 3:18 ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-15 6:11 ` Al Viro
2020-12-15 15:29 ` Jens Axboe
2021-01-04 5:31 ` Al Viro
2021-01-04 14:43 ` Jens Axboe
2021-01-04 16:54 ` Al Viro [this message]
2021-01-04 17:03 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <m1lfbrwrgq.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
2021-02-14 16:38 ` [PATCHSET v3 0/4] fs: Support for LOOKUP_NONBLOCK / RESOLVE_NONBLOCK (Insufficiently faking current?) Jens Axboe
2021-02-14 20:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-02-14 21:24 ` Al Viro
2021-02-15 18:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-02-15 18:24 ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-15 21:09 ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-15 22:41 ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-02-16 2:41 ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-17 1:18 ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-17 1:26 ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-17 3:11 ` Jens Axboe
2021-02-15 17:56 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210104165430.GI3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).