On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:43 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue 29-06-21 15:10:27, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> > From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > There are a lot of arguments to fsnotify() and the handle_event() method.
> > Pass them in a const struct instead of on the argument list.
> >
> > Apart from being more tidy, this helps with passing error reports to the
> > backend. __fsnotify_parent() argument list was intentionally left
> > untouched, because its argument list is still short enough and because
> > most of the event info arguments are initialized inside
> > __fsnotify_parent().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c | 59 +++++++++++------------
> > fs/notify/fsnotify.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> > include/linux/fsnotify.h | 15 ++++--
> > include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > 4 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
>
> Besides the noop function issue Amir has already pointed out I have just a
> few nits:
>
> > @@ -229,7 +229,11 @@ int __fsnotify_parent(struct dentry *dentry, __u32 mask, const void *data,
> > }
> >
> > notify:
> > - ret = fsnotify(mask, data, data_type, p_inode, file_name, inode, 0);
> > + ret = __fsnotify(mask, &(struct fsnotify_event_info) {
> > + .data = data, .data_type = data_type,
> > + .dir = p_inode, .name = file_name,
> > + .inode = inode,
> > + });
>
> What's the advantage of using __fsnotify() here instead of fsnotify()? In
> terms of readability the fewer places with these initializers the better
> I'd say...
>
> > static int fsnotify_handle_event(struct fsnotify_group *group, __u32 mask,
> > - const void *data, int data_type,
> > - struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *name,
> > - u32 cookie, struct fsnotify_iter_info *iter_info)
> > + const struct fsnotify_event_info *event_info,
> > + struct fsnotify_iter_info *iter_info)
> > {
> > struct fsnotify_mark *inode_mark = fsnotify_iter_inode_mark(iter_info);
> > struct fsnotify_mark *parent_mark = fsnotify_iter_parent_mark(iter_info);
> > + struct fsnotify_event_info child_event_info = { };
> > int ret;
>
> No need to init child_event_info. It is fully rewritten if it gets used...
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/fsnotify.h b/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> > index f8acddcf54fb..8c2c681b4495 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> > @@ -30,7 +30,10 @@ static inline void fsnotify_name(struct inode *dir, __u32 mask,
> > struct inode *child,
> > const struct qstr *name, u32 cookie)
> > {
> > - fsnotify(mask, child, FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE, dir, name, NULL, cookie);
> > + __fsnotify(mask, &(struct fsnotify_event_info) {
> > + .data = child, .data_type = FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE,
> > + .dir = dir, .name = name, .cookie = cookie,
> > + });
> > }
>
> Hmm, maybe we could have a macro initializer like:
>
> #define FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INFO(data, data_type, dir, name, inode, cookie) \
> (struct fsnotify_event_info) { \
> .data = (data), .data_type = (data_type), .dir = (dir), \
> .name = (name), .inode = (inode), .cookie = (cookie)}
>
> Then we'd have:
> __fsnotify(mask, &FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INFO(child, FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE,
> dir, name, NULL, cookie));
>
> Which looks a bit nicer to me. What do you think guys?
>
Sure, looks good.
But I think it would be even better to have different "wrapper defines" like
FSNOTIFY_NAME_EVENT_INFO() will less irrelevant arguments.
Thanks,
Amir.
