From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:46806 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727631AbeGTJTs (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:19:48 -0400
Received: by mail-oi0-f67.google.com with SMTP id y207-v6so19942711oie.13
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 01:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180719214519.GA23379@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180706204521.29654-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <CAJfpeguFaaE8i+fAg3HhQm6MPcFzMciY3WLfQUPdnY4xnmC7kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180718121833.GR30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20180719214519.GA23379@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:32:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtNMrFfwXjP8tMb0NvO=paDpESRBfueBit6mW2e7djhZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 (v4.18 regression fix)] vfs: don't evict uninitialized inode
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 01:18:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> BTW, why have you left generic_readlink() sitting around?  AFAICS,
>> it could've been folded into the only remaining caller just as
>> you've made it static in late 2016...  I'll fold it in;
>> just curious what was the reason for not doing that back then...
>
> BTW^2:
> const char *vfs_get_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct delayed_call *done)
> {
>         const char *res = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>         struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
>
>         if (d_is_symlink(dentry)) {
>                 res = ERR_PTR(security_inode_readlink(dentry));
>                 if (!res)
>                         res = inode->i_op->get_link(dentry, inode, done);
>         }
>         return res;
> }
> hits a method call that is not needed in the majority of cases.  Is there
> any subtle reason why it shouldn't be
>
> const char *vfs_get_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct delayed_call *done)
> {
>         const char *res = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>         struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
>
>         if (d_is_symlink(dentry)) {
>                 res = ERR_PTR(security_inode_readlink(dentry));
>                 if (!res)
>                         res = inode->i_link;
>                 if (!res)
>                         res = inode->i_op->get_link(dentry, inode, done);
>         }
>         return res;
> }
> instead?

Can't see any issues.  But I also don't think any of the callers are
seriously performance sensitive, so I guess it basically doesn't
matter.

Thanks,
Miklos