On Fri 14-09-18 10:09:09, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2018-09-04 18:06, Jan Kara 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>
> > ---
...
> > +static struct audit_chunk *mark_chunk(struct fsnotify_mark *mark)
> > +{
> > + return audit_mark(mark)->chunk;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void audit_tree_destroy_watch(struct fsnotify_mark *entry)
> > {
> > - struct audit_chunk *chunk = container_of(entry, struct audit_chunk, mark);
> > + struct audit_chunk *chunk = mark_chunk(entry);
> > audit_mark_put_chunk(chunk);
> > + kmem_cache_free(audit_tree_mark_cachep, audit_mark(entry));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct fsnotify_mark *alloc_mark(void)
> > +{
> > + struct audit_tree_mark *mark;
>
> Would it make sense to call this local variable "amark" to indicate it
> isn't a struct fsnotify_mark, but in fact an audit helper variant?
>
> > +
> > + mark = kmem_cache_zalloc(audit_tree_mark_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!mark)
> > + return NULL;
> > + fsnotify_init_mark(&mark->mark, audit_tree_group);
> > + mark->mark.mask = FS_IN_IGNORED;
> > + return &mark->mark;
>
> There are no other places where it is used in this patch to name a
> variable, but this one I found a bit confusing to follow the
> "mark->mark"
Yeah, makes sense. I can do the change.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
