[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080513130710.36bc65f7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 13:07:10 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: menage@...gle.com
Cc: pj@....com, xemul@...nvz.org, balbir@...ibm.com, serue@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/8]: CGroup Files: Add a cgroup write_string
control file method
On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:37:09 -0700
menage@...gle.com wrote:
> This patch adds a write_string() method for cgroups control files. The
> semantics are that a buffer is copied from userspace to kernelspace
> and the handler function invoked on that buffer. Any control group
> locking is done after the copy from userspace has occurred. The buffer
> is guaranteed to be nul-terminated, and no longer than max_write_len
> (defaulting to 64 bytes if unspecified). Later patches will convert
> existing raw file write handlers in control group subsystems to use
> this method.
>
nits:
>
> ---
> include/linux/cgroup.h | 10 ++++++++++
> kernel/cgroup.c | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: cgroup-2.6.25-mm1/include/linux/cgroup.h
> ===================================================================
> --- cgroup-2.6.25-mm1.orig/include/linux/cgroup.h
> +++ cgroup-2.6.25-mm1/include/linux/cgroup.h
> @@ -281,6 +281,10 @@ struct cftype {
> */
> int lockmode;
>
> + /* If non-zero, defines the maximum length of string that can
> + * be passed to write_string; defaults to 64 */
> + int max_write_len;
would size_t be a more appropriate type?
> int (*open) (struct inode *inode, struct file *file);
> ssize_t (*read) (struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> struct file *file,
> @@ -323,6 +327,12 @@ struct cftype {
> * write_s64() is a signed version of write_u64()
> */
> int (*write_s64) (struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, s64 val);
s/) (/)(/ would be more conventional.
> + /*
> + * write_string() is passed a nul-terminated kernelspace
> + * buffer of maximum length determined by max_write_len
> + */
> + int (*write_string) (struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> + char *buffer);
Should these return size_t?
> /*
> * trigger() callback can be used to get some kick from the
> Index: cgroup-2.6.25-mm1/kernel/cgroup.c
> ===================================================================
> --- cgroup-2.6.25-mm1.orig/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ cgroup-2.6.25-mm1/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -1461,7 +1461,7 @@ static ssize_t cgroup_file_write(struct
> ssize_t retval;
> char static_buffer[64];
> char *buffer = static_buffer;
> - ssize_t max_bytes = sizeof(static_buffer) - 1;
> + ssize_t max_bytes = cft->max_write_len ?: sizeof(static_buffer) - 1;
A blank line between end-of-locals and start-of-code is conventional
and, IMO, easier on the eye.
Does gcc actually generate better code with that x?:y thing? Because
it always makes me pause and scratch my head.
> if (!cft->write && !cft->trigger) {
> if (!nbytes)
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -1489,6 +1489,8 @@ static ssize_t cgroup_file_write(struct
> retval = cft->write(cgrp, cft, file, userbuf, nbytes, ppos);
> else if (cft->write_u64 || cft->write_s64)
> retval = cgroup_write_X64(cgrp, cft, buffer);
> + else if (cft->write_string)
> + retval = cft->write_string(cgrp, cft, buffer);
> else if (cft->trigger)
> retval = cft->trigger(cgrp, (unsigned int)cft->private);
> else
> @@ -1651,6 +1653,7 @@ static struct file_operations cgroup_seq
> .read = seq_read,
> .llseek = seq_lseek,
> .release = cgroup_seqfile_release,
> + .write = cgroup_file_write,
> };
>
> static int cgroup_file_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists