On Mon 11-06-18 16:58:14, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I reworked the cleanup patches to get rid of fsnotify_obj and pushed to: > > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux.git fsnotify-cleanup > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Only last 5 patches from fsnotify_for_v4.18-rc1 have been modified > > > and I removed your S-O-B from the modified patches. > > > > > > This leaves struct inode unchanged, in fact no changes to code outside > > > fsnotify/audit at all. > > > > > > mask is now a member of connector for the purpose of generalizing > > > add/remove mark, but struct inode/mount still have a copy of the mask > > > for the purpose of the VFS optimizations. > > > > Looking through those patches, is it really beneficial to add mask to > > connector when you keep it in inode / vfsmount? A helper function to get > > mask from connector would make the same refactoring possible as well, won't > > it? > > > > And adding a helper function to set mask given connector would get rid of > > the remaining checks for connector type due to mask manipulations... > > > > By moving the checks for object type into the helper? Yes, that's what I meant. > Anyway, my thinking was: > > What do we have to loose from keeping the mask also inside the connector? > > Not much. We didn't change the size of connector struct > and it hardly adds any complexity / performance cost. You've actually grown the connector by 1 long on x86_64 - spinlock_t is just 4 bytes there. Also it seems a bit stupid to me to have the mask in two places (connector & object) just to save ifs in two helper functions. > What do we have to gain from keeping the mask also inside the connector? > > We can later get rid of the copy of mask in inode struct as I wrote. > I will follow up on that. If we can get rid of the mask in inode, I'm definitely fine with moving the mask to the connector. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
