[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091210212332.GB10388@shell>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:23:32 -0500
From: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com>
To: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
Cc: Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Scott James Remnant <scott@...onical.com>,
Sandu Popa Marius <sandupopamarius@...il.com>,
Jan Rekorajski <baggins@...h.mimuw.edu.pl>,
"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Vladimir Dronnikov <dronnikov@...il.com>,
Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/41] VFS: Make lookup_hash() return a struct path
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 09:02:31PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
> In message <1256152779-10054-4-git-send-email-vaurora@...hat.com>, Valerie Aurora writes:
> > From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
> >
> > This patch changes lookup_hash() into returning a struct path.
>
> Actually, lookup_hash now also takes a qstr.
>
> This is a somewhat involved patch. I think more documentation is needed to
> list all the places it touches and changes, b/c now struct path has to
> propagate in various other places. (In general, passing struct path instead
> of struct dentry is going in the right direction: eventually we could get rid
> of lookup_one_len.)
Hm, it seems like a straightforward next step in the long-term project
of migration from dentries to paths. I looked at some of the previous
dentry->path patches and they didn't include this kind of documentation.
> > @@ -1219,14 +1219,22 @@ out:
> > * needs parent already locked. Doesn't follow mounts.
> > * SMP-safe.
> > */
> > -static struct dentry *lookup_hash(struct nameidata *nd)
> > +static int lookup_hash(struct nameidata *nd, struct qstr *name,
> > + struct path *path)
> > {
>
> I suggest you document above this function what the @name and @path are for,
> who is supposed to allocate and free them, caller/callee's responsibilities,
> side effects (if any), new return status upon success/failure, etc.
That would be good, but consistently documenting existing VFS
functionality would be a large project and not one I'm going to take
on. :)
-VAL
--
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