On 2024-11-12 08:59:16 [-1000], Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Hi, > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 04:52:39PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > ... > > /** > > - * pr_cont_kernfs_name - pr_cont name of a kernfs_node > > + * pr_cont_kernfs_name_rcu - pr_cont name of a kernfs_node > > * @kn: kernfs_node of interest > > * > > - * This function can be called from any context. > > + * This function can be called from any context. The root node must be with > > + * KERNFS_ROOT_SAME_PARENT. > > */ > > -void pr_cont_kernfs_name(struct kernfs_node *kn) > > +void pr_cont_kernfs_name_rcu(struct kernfs_node *kn) > > Having to split the interface all the way up isn't great. While there are > also downsides, I wonder whether a better approach here is just making the > backend function (kernfs_path_from_node()) automatically use RCU locking if > the flag is set rather than propagating the difference by splitting the > interface. The distinction doesn't mean anything to most users after all. Indeed. > Thanks. > Sebastian
