On Thu 08-07-21 14:09:43, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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.
If we don't overdo it, I agree :) I mean if we end up with a different
helper for each site creating this structure, I'm not sure it helps much...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
