lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] kernfs: Add API to generate relative kernfs path
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 05:36:51PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:27PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > we can rename kn_root to from here if you think that's clearer (and
> > change the order here as well).
>
> I think it'd be better for them to be consistent and in the same order
> - the target and then the optional base.
>
> > > Was converting the path functions to return
> > > length too much work? If so, that's fine but please explain what
> > > decisions were made.
> >
> > Yes, I had replied saying:
> >
> > |I can change that, but the callers right now don't re-try with
> > |larger buffer anyway, so this would actually complicate them just
> > |a smidgeon. Would you want them changed to do that? (pr_cont_kernfs_path
> > |right now writes into a static char[] for instance)
> >
> > I can still make that change if you like.
>
> Oops, sorry I forgot about that. The reason why kernfs_path() is
> written the current way was me being lazy. While I think it'd be
> better to make the functions behave like normal string handling
> functions if we're extending it, I don't think it's that important.
> If it's easy, please go ahead. If not, we can get back to it later
> when necessary.
>
> > > I skimmed through the series and spotted several other review points
> > > which didn't get addressed. Can you please go over the previous
> > > review cycle and address the review points?
> >
> > I did go through every email twice, once while making changes (one
> > branch per response) and once while making changelog for each patch,
> > sorry about whatever I missed. I'll go through each again.
>
> The other chunk I noticed was inline conversions of internal functions
> which didn't seem to belong to the patch. I asked whether those were
> stray chunks. Maybe the comment was too buried to notice? Anyways,
> that part actually causes conflicts when applying to cgroup/for-4.5.
>
> There are a couple more things.
>
> * Can you please put the ns related decls after the regular cgroup
> stuff in cgroup.h?
>
> * I think I might need to edit the documentation anyway but it'd be
> great if you can make the namespace section more in line with the
> rest of the documentation - e.g. s/CGroup/cgroup/ and more
> structured sectioning.

Ok fwiw I've fixed up the arguments to kernfs_path_from_node, removed
the inlines, and moved the ns related decls after the others in cgroup.h
(i.e. done the easy stuff) in the 2015-12-09/cgroupns.3 branch of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sergeh/linux-security.git

I'll address the rest either after next week or, hopefully, when I get
a chance earlier.

> At this point, it all generally looks good to me. Let's get the
> nits out of the way and merge it.

If you wanted to take the branch as is, then I'll do the documentation
and pr_cont_kernfs_path() etc rewrite as separate patches, but I'll
assume you'd like to at least wait for doc rewrite.

-serge


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-10 02:41    [W:0.080 / U:10.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site