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: <d08e698b-f217-4065-9e7c-47f647ffeea3@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 08:09:15 +0800
From: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...weicloud.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, brauner@...nel.org,
 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()



在 2025/5/17 7:57, Al Viro 写道:
> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 07:54:55AM +0800, Zizhi Wo wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2025/5/16 18:31, Jan Kara 写道:
>>> 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
>>
>> Yes, I had considered simply fixing the declaration earlier. However, in
>> the include/linux/mount.h file, similar functions like
>> "mnt_put_write_access" use "mnt" as the parameter name rather than "m",
>> just like "mnt_get_write_access". So I chose to modify the function
>> implementation directly, although this resulted in a larger amount of
>> changes. So as you can see, for simplicity, I will directly update the
>> parameter name in the function declaration in the second version.
> 
> FWIW, "mnt for vfsmount, m for mount" is an informal convention in that
> area, so I'd say go for it if there had been any change in the function
> in question.  Same as with coding style, really...

Thanks for the additional information. Based on informal conventions, it
seems that this is the only way to modify it... ?

Thanks,
Zizhi Wo