From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54F0FDDC5; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:30:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724891413; cv=none; b=J/wm729bzZ02atKwiFIdrVyXQjX7lgBr3tTB/utQdRvnKZS5UydE0qZ01RhMjkIwS+itZhV/Z5hicXFG+z4ihlxdtkmTbNdVhFKywH2APvJKPZWQ82mtoo02Yhj+9Qcy9fih+0kgB2bXJgqeWYPiIUBkVzfoVpGz73IHnc1gOBU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724891413; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5BaSTKCGeoYXxKbl8H2007adXY8sJdQfF5NDgHn4OOI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QdIQQ3kCrF181sfs7+oIKzGwfimzNHBpMuOeMqZ9MUc9BoiKoC6dG2q2QnckqhWFXUgpS61uLW4XwOKpKg3oaAmErRGT/8rzQH5E7M5O0/Ws2T/as2qt/WnxfG1aAlahP7CjSFQti17UpzekoR+L/SW9HfRXc4vwjTlntaESbdI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=qsnAcXKZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="qsnAcXKZ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A69CFC4CEC0; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:30:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1724891412; bh=5BaSTKCGeoYXxKbl8H2007adXY8sJdQfF5NDgHn4OOI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qsnAcXKZqMAWZ66mdIY2SX6jedojdT+cIL4ZxuNjOyE6qhGR8g3rdZEn2nYirjDo7 Lo+fZNWFlpBxd1Mlog9z+h22hj7kmA0TZ1w56LuiER/+bkbyXBbeXK8wUbhCq8xqxO R3MCpU+I3VGrYslEhYgAwS1vUgegrWUMWxnZ9LWoCqJKeRMqMFsejCgyrBP+Kvj9GS R7JSeVgBlXt9X7QKs6VNYHcwlcIWN909cCHBSw1BF/kJtf+Jx4CsIFBpXQFX/mmE3f 5t2u6D3I3pTbGSM38kPLsEypJBFGDP3/dgSZwzE+F0ys0hM0dasTNw5GNiOInle2nM f26p75DyudTTw== Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 20:30:11 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer To: Chuck Lever Cc: NeilBrown , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , Anna Schumaker , Trond Myklebust , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 04/19] nfsd: factor out __fh_verify to allow NULL rqstp to be passed Message-ID: References: <> <172462948890.6062.12952329291740788286@noble.neil.brown.name> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:01:01PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 09:44:48AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2024, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > See comment on 5/N: since that patch makes this a public API again, > > > consider not removing this kdoc comment but rather updating it. > > > > What exactly do you consider to be a "public API"?? Anything without > > "static"? That seems somewhat arbitrary. > > > > I think of __fh_verify() as a private API used by fh_verify() and > > nfsd_file_acquire_local() and nothing else. > > > > It seems pointless duplication the documentation for __fh_verify() and > > fh_verify(). Maybe one could refer to the other "fh_verify is like > > fh_verify except ....." > > > > ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > -__be32 > > > > -fh_verify(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp, umode_t type, int access) > > > > +static __be32 > > > > +__fh_verify(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, > > An alternative would be to leave __fh_verify() as a static, and then > add an fh_verify_local() API, echoing nfsd_file_acquire_local(), and > then give that API a kdoc comment. > > That would make it clear who the intended consumer is. I ran with this idea, definite improvement, you'll find the changes folded in to the relevant patch (with the same subject) in v14. Thanks, Mike