[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180312073719.ugsbv3nlkbbtac4v@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:37:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 35/35] syscalls: do not call sys_close() within the
kernel
* Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net> wrote:
> --- a/fs/open.c
> +++ b/fs/open.c
> @@ -1200,7 +1200,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(close, unsigned int, fd)
>
> return retval;
> }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(sys_close);
> +
>
> /*
Nit: this introduces a stray newline.
> --- a/include/linux/syscalls.h
> +++ b/include/linux/syscalls.h
> @@ -1042,4 +1042,10 @@ static inline long ksys_lchown(const char __user *filename, uid_t user,
> return do_fchownat(AT_FDCWD, filename, user, group,
> AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW);
> }
> +
> +extern int __close_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned int fd);
> +static inline int ksys_close(unsigned int fd)
> +{
> + return __close_fd(current->files, fd);
> +}
Would be nice to reuse that stray newline after the __close_fd() prototype for the
canonical stylistic separation of declarations from definitions.
It would also be very nice to add a short comment before ksys_close() that
explains how it differs from sys_close(). This should reduce the amount of
cargo-cult copying of existing ksys_close()/sys_close() patterns.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists