linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] next cycle fun: ->release() API change

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFy8Y9w0OBHLTqHxjLLXZXOSf+d5YJ-huNaMOs3V5DycCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 11 May 2013 14:12:25 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] next cycle fun: ->release() API change

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Less boilerplate?  We used to pass inode to fput() as well, but
> switched to passing file alone...

.. and that was painful.

The advantage has to be balanced against the pain it causes. I'm not
seeing the advantage here as being worth it. If this kind of thing not
only causes way more churn, _and_ it causes us to pick a new (worse)
name just because it also forces a non-compatible ABI, I'm really
doubtful.

I mean, if we had *other* reasons for the churn, and the name needed
to change anyway, then maybe, but..

             Linus
--
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/