On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 07:18:11AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 10:27:51PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 10:09:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > This will allow proc files to implement iter read semantics. > > > > *UGH* > > > > You are introducing file_operations with both ->read() and ->read_iter(); > > worse, in some cases they are not equivalent. Sure, ->read() takes > > precedence right now, but... why not a separate file_operations for > > ->read_iter-capable files? > > I looked at that initially. We'd need to more instances as there > already are two due to compat stuff. If that is preferably I can > switch to that version. > > > I really hate the fallbacks of that sort - they tend to be brittle > > as hell. And while we are at it, I'm not sure that your iter_read() > > has good cause to be non-static. > > The other user of it is seq_file, which as-is should go away, but > will probably keep the occasional version of it in the caller. I just > got really tired of reimplementing it a few times. I've force puhed a new version to the existing location: git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git set_fs-rw That gets uses separate ops in proc after a few preparational cleanups and rid of the iter_read() patch entirely. Let me know what you think, I don't really want to send the whole patch bomb again already. Gitweb is also avaiable here: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/set_fs-rw
