On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 01:29:47PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 03:08:36AM +0000, xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > on 2022/4/25 10:45, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:09:38AM +0800, Yang Xu wrote: > > >> This has no functional change. Just create and export inode_sgid_strip > > >> api for the subsequent patch. This function is used to strip inode's > > >> S_ISGID mode when init a new inode. > > > > > > Why would you call this inode_sgid_strip() instead of > > > inode_strip_sgid()? > > > > Because I treated "inode sgid(inode's sgid)" as a whole. > > > > inode_strip_sgid sounds also ok, but now seems strip_inode_sgid seem > > more clear because we strip inode sgid depend on not only inode's > > condition but also depend on parent directory's condition. > > > > What do you think about this? > > > > ps: I can aceept the above several way, so if you insist, I can change > > it to inode_strip_sgid. > > I agree with Willy. I think inode_strip_sgid() is better. It'll be in > good company as <object>_<verb>_<what?> is pretty common: > > inode_update_atime() > inode_init_once() > inode_init_owner() > inode_init_early() > inode_add_lru() > inode_needs_sync() > inode_set_flags() > > Maybe mode_remove_sgid() is even better because it makes it clear that > the change happens to @mode and not @dir. But I'm fine with > inode_strip_sgid() or inode_remove_sgid() too. Oh! Yes, mode_strip_sgid() is better. We're operating on the mode, not the inode.
