On Tue 04-09-18 16:03:07, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 27-07-18 00:47:37, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:02 AM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Allocate fsnotify mark independently instead of embedding it inside
> > > chunk. This will allow us to just replace chunk attached to mark when
> > > growing / shrinking chunk instead of replacing mark attached to inode
> > > which is a more complex operation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/audit_tree.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/audit_tree.c b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> > > index bce3b04a365d..aec9b27a20ff 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/audit_tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> > > @@ -38,6 +38,11 @@ struct audit_chunk {
> > > } owners[];
> > > };
> > >
> > > +struct audit_tree_mark {
> > > + struct fsnotify_mark fsn_mark;
> > > + struct audit_chunk *chunk;
> > > +};
> >
> > It's probably okay to just call it "mark" considering we call
> > fsnotify_mark fields "mark" elsewhere. If we are going to change it
> > in one spot we should probably change it other places as well for the
> > sake of readability.
>
> The current notation is that 'fsn_mark' (or sometimes 'entry') is struct
> fsnotify_mark while plain 'mark' is struct audit_tree_mark (well, except
> for audit_chunk AFAICS). So just replacing fsn_mark with mark is IMO going
> to cause more confusion. But if you prefer different naming convention,
> this is the right moment to bring some consistency into the whole thing.
> So how do you prefer to differentiate between fsnotify_mark and
> audit_tree_mark?
After searching the code and given your observation that audit_tree_mark is
rarely directly used, I guess I'll just make fsn_mark -> mark, entry->mark
renaming and invent some name for the few places where we use
audit_tree_mark directly.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
