lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <db803720-66a6-4e0e-88ce-6b8a05845146@gmx.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 18:16:33 +0930 From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com> To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] fs: enhance and rename shutdown() callback to remove_bdev() 在 2025/7/1 18:11, Christian Brauner 写道: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 04:05:03PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> 在 2025/7/1 15:44, Christoph Hellwig 写道: >>> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:02:34PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>> To allow those multi-device filesystems to be integrated to use >>>> fs_holder_ops: >>>> >>>> - Rename shutdown() call back to remove_bdev() >>>> To better describe when the call back is called. >>> >>> What is renamed back here? >> >> Rename the old shutdown to remove_bdev(). >> >>> >>>> -static void exfat_shutdown(struct super_block *sb) >>>> +static void exfat_shutdown(struct super_block *sb, struct block_device *bdev) >>>> { >>>> exfat_force_shutdown(sb, EXFAT_GOING_DOWN_NOSYNC); >>>> } >>>> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static const struct super_operations exfat_sops = { >>>> .put_super = exfat_put_super, >>>> .statfs = exfat_statfs, >>>> .show_options = exfat_show_options, >>>> - .shutdown = exfat_shutdown, >>>> + .remove_bdev = exfat_shutdown, >>> >>> Please also rename the function so that they match the method name. >> >> I prefer not, and it is intentionally left as is. >> >> This give us a very clear view what a fs is expected to do. > > Qu, would you please rename the individual functions? Sure. I'll keep the fs' function names consistent with the callback names. Especially there are already quite some maintainers wanting a consistent pattern here. Thanks, Qu > > The NAK later just because of this is unnecessary. I will say clearly > that I will ignore gratuitous NAKs that are premised on large scale > rewrites that are out of scope for the problem. > > Here the requested rework has an acceptable scope though and we can > sidestep the whole problem and solve it so everyone's happy. >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists