> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx> > > > > Untange the mess that is do_utimes() > > A good idea to untangle this, but I'm not entirely happy with how it's > done. > > utimes_need_permission is a good helper and fine with me. > > utimes_common is a good idea aswell, but I'd rather take the permission > checks into it aswell, even if that means a little flag telling if > file->f_mode should be checked or vfs_permission(). How would that be better? There's zero commonality between the two kinds of permission checks (other than utimes_need_permission()). > do_fd_utimes sounds fine, but I don't like that name. do_futimes maybe? Whatever you prefer. It's a static function, so it's not really a big issue. > and when the fd-side is sorted out the path side should probably be a > helper aswell. Then sys_utime/sys_utimes/arhc bits could call it directly, > with the initial check in do_utimes separated out into a helper ala > utimes_need_permission. do_utimes should probably become do_futimesat > at the point. OK, makes sense. Miklos -- 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
