[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141019145025.GA9593@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 07:50:25 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org, tyhicks@...onical.com,
ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ecryptfs: add fadvise/set_flags calbacks
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 07:21:27PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> + if (ecryptfs_file_to_private(file))
> + lower_file = ecryptfs_file_to_lower(file);
> +
> + if (!lower_file || !lower_file->f_op)
> + return rc;
At least a file without f->f_op should never happen. How could ecryptfs
not have a lower file here?
>
> +
> + if (lower_file->f_op && lower_file->f_op->fadvise)
> + rc = lower_file->f_op->fadvise(lower_file, offset, len, advice);
> + else
> + rc = generic_fadvise(lower_file, offset, len, advice);
Seems like this should be in a vfs_fadvice helper.
> + if (!rc)
> + generic_fadvise(file, offset, len, advice);
Setting the advice on both files seems odd. Which one do we actually
need them on?
> + if (lower_file->f_op && lower_file->f_op->set_flags) {
> + rc = lower_file->f_op->set_flags(lower_file,
> + flags & ECRYPTFS_FL_MASK);
> + if (rc)
> + return rc;
> + } else
> + generic_file_set_flags(file, flags & ECRYPTFS_FL_MASK);
Seems like you want a vfs_set_flags again.
--
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