From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752750AbeDFMrR (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:47:17 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:42437 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752021AbeDFMrQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Apr 2018 08:47:16 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49OkwmJT6dgmldhZ4iG4Wi1tUArtqzSbc17XiWGQtZHOOPjRwHYyLvJRl5IHfWkC4mRwgSfoQ== From: Christian Brauner X-Google-Original-From: Christian Brauner Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 14:47:12 +0200 To: Linus Torvalds , Al Viro Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 RESEND] namei: add follow_up_bind() Message-ID: <20180406124711.GA9263@gmail.com> References: <20180405105103.21572-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> <20180405174455.GA27462@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180405174455.GA27462@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 07:45:15PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:28:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Christian Brauner > > wrote: > > > > > > This series adds: > > > - follow_up_bind() to namei.{c,h} > > > - switches fs/nfsd/vfs.c:follow_to_parent() to use follow_up_bind() > > > - switches fs/devpts/inode.c:devpts_mntget() to use follow_up_bind() > > > > Hmm. Seems fair enough to me, although I wonder how much this really > > helps. It does get rid of a duplicate code pattern, but: > > > > 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > and while some of that is just the new comment, some of it is just "overhead". > > Fwiw, it does get read of these while loops in two places but I > personally see the biggest value in making it obvious what bind-mount > resolution means. > > > > > It's also a bit odd how the new helper is marked "inline", but nobody > > will inline it because it's not actually in the header file or any of > > the isers in the same C file. So instead, it has to be exported. I > > wonder if it should just be a trivial inline in ? Maybe > > it originally was, and that's where the inline came from, and then > > Christian decided to make it be by the regular "follow_up()" instead? > > I head it inline first but it would have required to forward declare > struct vfsmount in the head and I wasn't sure if that was going to fly. > But I explicitly left the inline in there because I was following > user_path_create() ([1], [2]) which does the same. But if that's an > issue I can make it static inline in the header like I had, forward > declare struct vfsmount and remove the unnecessary inline from > user_path_create() in a separate patch unless there's a specific reason > to leave it in there. > > [1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/namei.h#L79 > [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/namei.c#L3680 In case that wasn't clear from the previous message: I'd wait for a go ahead on this if that's ok. Christian > > > > > But with all that said, I certainly don't *mind* the patch series. > > Cool. > > Thanks! > Christian > > > > > Al, I'm leaving this up to you, and expect to get it from your vfs > > tree eventually. Or not. > > > > Linus