[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180919012626.GA482@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:26:26 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/33] vfs: Implement a filesystem superblock
creation/configuration context [ver #11]
On (09/19/18 10:12), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (09/18/18 07:06), Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > So the check either better be
> > >
> > > if (fc->ops && fc->ops->reconfigure)
> > >
> >
> > Since there are multiple instances of fs_context where fc->ops isn't set,
> > this check would be needed wherever fc->ops is dereferenced.
>
> Right. If fc is always guaranteed to be properly zeroed-out. This is
> true for kzalloc-ed fc's, but not necessarily so in any other case.
What I mean was something like this
void foo(void)
{
struct fs_context fc;
fc.purpose = ...;
fc.fs_type = ...;
fc.root = ...;
fc.sb_flags = ...;
reconfigure_super(&fc);
}
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists