[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191115194138.GU26530@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:41:38 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, yu kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>,
rafael@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, mchehab+samsung@...nel.org,
corbet@....net, tytso@....edu, jmorris@...ei.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
zhengbin13@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
chenxiang66@...ilicon.com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_recursive_removal()
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:42:09PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> Come to think of that, if we use IS_DEADDIR as "no more additions" marking,
> that looks like a good candidate for all in-kernel rm -rf on ramfs-style
> filesystems without cross-directory renames. This bit in kill_it() above
> if victim is regular
> __debugfs_file_removed(victim)
> would be an fs-specific callback passed by the caller, turning the whole
> thing into this:
Umm... A bit more than that, actually - the callback would be
void remove_one(struct dentry *victim)
{
if (d_is_reg(victim))
__debugfs_file_removed(victim);
simple_release_fs(&debugfs_mount, &debugfs_mount_count);
}
and the caller would do
simple_pin_fs(&debug_fs_type, &debugfs_mount, &debugfs_mount_count);
simple_recursive_removal(dentry, remove_one);
simple_release_fs(&debugfs_mount, &debugfs_mount_count);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists