On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 3:07 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> As I browse through this series, I find this pattern unnecessarily
> verbose and it exposes way too much of the filtering mechanism to
> code that should not have to know anything about it.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to code this as:
>
> error = fuse_filter_fallocate(file, mode, offset, length);
> if (error < 0)
> return error;
>
>
> And then make this fuse_bpf_backing() call and all the indirect
> functions it uses internal (i.e. static) in fs/fuse/backing.c?
>
> That way the interface in fs/fuse/fuse_i.h can be much cleaner and
> handle the #ifdef CONFIG_FUSE_BPF directly by:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FUSE_BPF
> ....
> int fuse_filter_fallocate(file, mode, offset, length);
> ....
> #else /* !CONFIG_FUSE_BPF */
> ....
> static inline fuse_filter_fallocate(file, mode, offset, length)
> {
> return 0;
> }
> ....
> #endif /* CONFIG_FUSE_BPF */
>
> This seems much cleaner to me than exposing fuse_bpf_backing()
> boiler plate all over the code...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>
Thanks for the suggestion, that'll help clean things up a bit. It's
quite nice to have fresh eyes looking over the code.
-Daniel
