[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200629165014.GA20492@sol.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:50:14 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Daeho Jeong <daeho43@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: don't unnecessarily clone write access for
writable fds
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 09:05:34AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>
> There's no need for mnt_want_write_file() to increment mnt_writers when
> the file is already open for writing, provided that
> mnt_drop_write_file() is changed to conditionally decrement it.
>
> We seem to have ended up in the current situation because
> mnt_want_write_file() used to be paired with mnt_drop_write(), due to
> mnt_drop_write_file() not having been added yet. So originally
> mnt_want_write_file() had to always increment mnt_writers.
>
> But later mnt_drop_write_file() was added, and all callers of
> mnt_want_write_file() were paired with it. This makes the compatibility
> between mnt_want_write_file() and mnt_drop_write() no longer necessary.
>
> Therefore, make __mnt_want_write_file() and __mnt_drop_write_file() skip
> incrementing mnt_writers on files already open for writing. This
> removes the only caller of mnt_clone_write(), so remove that too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Al, any thoughts on this patch?
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists