[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180719214519.GA23379@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 22:45:20 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 (v4.18 regression fix)] vfs: don't evict uninitialized
inode
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 01:18:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> BTW, why have you left generic_readlink() sitting around? AFAICS,
> it could've been folded into the only remaining caller just as
> you've made it static in late 2016... I'll fold it in;
> just curious what was the reason for not doing that back then...
BTW^2:
const char *vfs_get_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct delayed_call *done)
{
const char *res = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
if (d_is_symlink(dentry)) {
res = ERR_PTR(security_inode_readlink(dentry));
if (!res)
res = inode->i_op->get_link(dentry, inode, done);
}
return res;
}
hits a method call that is not needed in the majority of cases. Is there
any subtle reason why it shouldn't be
const char *vfs_get_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct delayed_call *done)
{
const char *res = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
if (d_is_symlink(dentry)) {
res = ERR_PTR(security_inode_readlink(dentry));
if (!res)
res = inode->i_link;
if (!res)
res = inode->i_op->get_link(dentry, inode, done);
}
return res;
}
instead?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists