Hello, Serge.
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:28:54PM -0600, serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> +/* kernfs_node_depth - compute depth from @from to @to */
> +static size_t kernfs_depth(struct kernfs_node *from, struct kernfs_node *to)
...
> +char *kernfs_path(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf, size_t buflen)
> +{
> + return kernfs_path_from_node(NULL, kn, buf, buflen);
> +}
...
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernfs.h b/include/linux/kernfs.h
> index 5d4e9c4..d025ebd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kernfs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernfs.h
> @@ -267,6 +267,9 @@ static inline bool kernfs_ns_enabled(struct kernfs_node *kn)
>
> int kernfs_name(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf, size_t buflen);
> size_t kernfs_path_len(struct kernfs_node *kn);
> +char * __must_check kernfs_path_from_node(struct kernfs_node *root_kn,
> + struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf,
> + size_t buflen);
I think I commented on the same thing before, but I think it'd make
more sense to put @from after @to and the prototype is using @root_kn
which is a bit confusing. Was converting the path functions to return
length too much work? If so, that's fine but please explain what
decisions were made.
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?
Thanks.
--
tejun
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
