From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D84CC433DB for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:55:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BB6224DF for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:55:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726189AbhADQzU (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:55:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54300 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725840AbhADQzT (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:55:19 -0500 Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [IPv6:2002:c35c:fd02::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 974ACC061793 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:54:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kwT7m-006pWK-7W; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 16:54:30 +0000 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:54:30 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3 0/4] fs: Support for LOOKUP_NONBLOCK / RESOLVE_NONBLOCK Message-ID: <20210104165430.GI3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20201214191323.173773-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20210104053112.GH3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: Al Viro Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org 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.