linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Rename the parameter of mnt_get_write

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <vtfnncganindq4q7t4icfaujkgejlbd7repvurpjx6nwf6i7zp@hr44m22ij4qf>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 12:31:58 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...weicloud.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Rename the parameter of mnt_get_write_access()

On Fri 16-05-25 11:21:47, Zizhi Wo wrote:
> From: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...wei.com>
> 
> Rename the parameter in mnt_get_write_access() from "m" to "mnt" for
> consistency between declaration and implementation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...wei.com>

I'm sorry but this is just a pointless churn. I agree the declaration and
implementation should better be consistent (although in this particular
case it isn't too worrying) but it's much easier (and with much lower
chance to cause conflicts) to just fixup the declaration.

								Honza

> ---
>  fs/namespace.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> index 1b466c54a357..b1b679433ab3 100644
> --- a/fs/namespace.c
> +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static int mnt_is_readonly(struct vfsmount *mnt)
>   */
>  /**
>   * mnt_get_write_access - get write access to a mount without freeze protection
> - * @m: the mount on which to take a write
> + * @mnt: the mount on which to take a write
>   *
>   * This tells the low-level filesystem that a write is about to be performed to
>   * it, and makes sure that writes are allowed (mnt it read-write) before
> @@ -491,13 +491,13 @@ static int mnt_is_readonly(struct vfsmount *mnt)
>   * frozen. When the write operation is finished, mnt_put_write_access() must be
>   * called. This is effectively a refcount.
>   */
> -int mnt_get_write_access(struct vfsmount *m)
> +int mnt_get_write_access(struct vfsmount *mnt)
>  {
> -	struct mount *mnt = real_mount(m);
> +	struct mount *m = real_mount(mnt);
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	preempt_disable();
> -	mnt_inc_writers(mnt);
> +	mnt_inc_writers(m);
>  	/*
>  	 * The store to mnt_inc_writers must be visible before we pass
>  	 * MNT_WRITE_HOLD loop below, so that the slowpath can see our
> @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ int mnt_get_write_access(struct vfsmount *m)
>  	 */
>  	smp_mb();
>  	might_lock(&mount_lock.lock);
> -	while (READ_ONCE(mnt->mnt.mnt_flags) & MNT_WRITE_HOLD) {
> +	while (READ_ONCE(m->mnt.mnt_flags) & MNT_WRITE_HOLD) {
>  		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
>  			cpu_relax();
>  		} else {
> @@ -530,8 +530,8 @@ int mnt_get_write_access(struct vfsmount *m)
>  	 * read-only.
>  	 */
>  	smp_rmb();
> -	if (mnt_is_readonly(m)) {
> -		mnt_dec_writers(mnt);
> +	if (mnt_is_readonly(mnt)) {
> +		mnt_dec_writers(m);
>  		ret = -EROFS;
>  	}
>  	preempt_enable();
> -- 
> 2.39.2
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR