On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 01:18:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> BTW, why have you left generic_readlink() sitting around? AFAICS,
>> it could've been folded into the only remaining caller just as
>> you've made it static in late 2016... I'll fold it in;
>> just curious what was the reason for not doing that back then...
>
> BTW^2:
> const char *vfs_get_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct delayed_call *done)
> {
> const char *res = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
>
> if (d_is_symlink(dentry)) {
> res = ERR_PTR(security_inode_readlink(dentry));
> if (!res)
> res = inode->i_op->get_link(dentry, inode, done);
> }
> return res;
> }
> hits a method call that is not needed in the majority of cases. Is there
> any subtle reason why it shouldn't be
>
> const char *vfs_get_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct delayed_call *done)
> {
> const char *res = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
>
> if (d_is_symlink(dentry)) {
> res = ERR_PTR(security_inode_readlink(dentry));
> if (!res)
> res = inode->i_link;
> if (!res)
> res = inode->i_op->get_link(dentry, inode, done);
> }
> return res;
> }
> instead?
Can't see any issues. But I also don't think any of the callers are
seriously performance sensitive, so I guess it basically doesn't
matter.
Thanks,
Miklos
