lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/6] pipes: use alloc-file instead of duplicating code
From
Date
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:08 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009, Eric Paris wrote:
> > The pipe code duplicates the functionality of alloc-file and init-file. Use
> > the generic vfs functions instead of duplicating code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
>
> Acked-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
>
> As a side note: I wonder why we aren't passing a "struct path" to
> alloc_file() and why are the refcount rules wrt. dentries/vfsmounts so
> weird?

It's probably because of the slightly weird refcnt rules that it asks
for the dentry and vfsmount separately rather than as a struct path.
The rules make perfect sense if you consider

d_alloc() <-- reference on dentry
d_instantiate()
alloc_file() <-- reference on vfsmount
so here file->f_path() is all good.

Which a number of callers user. They make less sense when you consider
something that is not allocating the dentry right there (like this path)

dget(dentry); <-- reference here
alloc_file() <-- reference on vfsmount;
so here file->f_path is all good.

It would be a reasonable interface if it took a struct path and then
took a reference on the struct path. The second case would look more
clean, but the first case would turn into

d_alloc()
d_instantiate()
alloc_file()
d_put() /* matches d_alloc() */

and

alloc_file()

Is this better? I'll gladly do it if other think so it makes more
sense....

-Eric



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-04 19:57    [W:0.050 / U:0.756 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site