On Saturday 30 June 2007 11:13, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > We need something like this, but I don't quite like the way you've done > it. First the name is wrong, it's not a nameidata anymore but a lookup > intent, so it should be named that way, struct lookup_intent. Sure, that name was pretty random ... lookup_intent has gotten the majority of votes so far, and I'm perfectly fine with that. > Second the macro hackery is more than ugly, please keep the structures > separate. With modern gcc it might be possible to embed the lookup_intent > into the nameidata anonymously. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.0/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html If we can add the -fms-extensions gcc option we can get rid of the macro, and the code becomes pretty clean (as shown below). If we cannot add this option, then gcc would puke on ``struct lookup_intent;'' in the definition of struct nameidata. The macro is the cleanest way to work around this I could come up with, but maybe somebody knows another trick. --- a/include/linux/namei.h +++ b/include/linux/namei.h @@ -14,14 +14,10 @@ struct open_intent { enum { MAX_NESTED_LINKS = 8 }; -struct nameidata { +struct lookup_intent { struct dentry *dentry; struct vfsmount *mnt; - struct qstr last; unsigned int flags; - int last_type; - unsigned depth; - char *saved_names[MAX_NESTED_LINKS + 1]; /* Intent data */ union { @@ -29,6 +25,19 @@ struct nameidata { } intent; }; +struct nameidata { + struct lookup_intent; + struct qstr last; + int last_type; + unsigned depth; + char *saved_names[MAX_NESTED_LINKS + 1]; +}; > Also please either remove the dentry from struct lookup_entry or from the > direct argument list of the functions and methods - there is no need to pass > this one twice. The dentry in the lookup_intent of the create inode operation is the parent dentry right now, and the child dentry is passed as the separate parameter. I would prefer the cleaner interface in which the lookup_intent refers to the child dentry as well. (Getting from the child to the parent is trivial.) I guess this can go in an incremental patch with the next version of these patches. Thanks, Andreas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
