[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250606-zuzahlen-vervielfachen-8831c5ca8f69@brauner>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 12:10:54 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...nel.org>, Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>,
Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@...il.com>, Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>,
Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Bharath SM <bharathsm@...rosoft.com>,
NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>, Olga Kornievskaia <okorniev@...hat.com>,
Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 04/28] vfs: allow mkdir to wait for delegation
break on parent
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 07:25:38AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 13:19 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 02-06-25 10:01:47, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > In order to add directory delegation support, we need to break
> > > delegations on the parent whenever there is going to be a change in the
> > > directory.
> > >
> > > Rename the existing vfs_mkdir to __vfs_mkdir, make it static and add a
> > > new delegated_inode parameter. Add a new exported vfs_mkdir wrapper
> > > around it that passes a NULL pointer for delegated_inode.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> >
> > FWIW I went through the changes adding breaking of delegations to VFS
> > directory functions and they look ok to me. Just I dislike the addition of
> > __vfs_mkdir() (and similar) helpers because over longer term the helpers
> > tend to pile up and the maze of functions (already hard to follow in VFS)
> > gets unwieldy. Either I'd try to give it a proper name or (if exposing the
> > functionality to the external world is fine - which seems it is) you could
> > just add the argument to vfs_mkdir() and change all the callers? I've
> > checked and for each of the modified functions there's less than 10 callers
> > so the churn shouldn't be that big. What do others think?
If it's just a few callers we should just add the argument.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists