On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 8:50 AM Stefan Roesch <shr@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This splits off do_getxattr function from the getxattr
> function. This will allow io_uring to call it from its
> io worker.
Hmm.
My reaction to this one is
"Why isn't do_getxattr() using 'struct xattr_ctx' for its context?"
As far as I can tell, that's *exactly* what it wants, and it would be
logical to match up with the setxattr side.
Yeah, yeah, setxattr has a 'const void __user *value' while getxattr
obviously has just a 'void __user *value'. But if the cost of having a
unified interface is that you lose the 'const' part for the setxattr,
I think that's still a good thing.
Yes? No? Comments?
Linus
