Re: [PATCH 01/17] simple_recursive_removal(): saner interaction with fsnotify

[Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 9:35 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Make it match the real unlink(2)/rmdir(2) - notify *after* the
> operation.  And use fsnotify_delete() instead of messing with
> fsnotify_unlink()/fsnotify_rmdir().
>
> Currently the only caller that cares is the one in debugfs, and
> there the order matching the normal syscalls makes more sense;
> it'll get more serious for users introduced later in the series.
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

Makes sense.
Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>

> ---
>  fs/libfs.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/libfs.c b/fs/libfs.c
> index 9ea0ecc325a8..42e226af6095 100644
> --- a/fs/libfs.c
> +++ b/fs/libfs.c
> @@ -628,12 +628,9 @@ void simple_recursive_removal(struct dentry *dentry,
>                         inode_lock(inode);
>                         if (simple_positive(victim)) {
>                                 d_invalidate(victim);   // avoid lost mounts
> -                               if (d_is_dir(victim))
> -                                       fsnotify_rmdir(inode, victim);
> -                               else
> -                                       fsnotify_unlink(inode, victim);
>                                 if (callback)
>                                         callback(victim);
> +                               fsnotify_delete(inode, d_inode(victim), victim);
>                                 dput(victim);           // unpin it
>                         }
>                         if (victim == dentry) {
> --
> 2.39.5
>
>