On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:08 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, 03 Dec 2009, Eric Paris wrote: > > The pipe code duplicates the functionality of alloc-file and init-file. Use > > the generic vfs functions instead of duplicating code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> > > As a side note: I wonder why we aren't passing a "struct path" to > alloc_file() and why are the refcount rules wrt. dentries/vfsmounts so > weird? It's probably because of the slightly weird refcnt rules that it asks for the dentry and vfsmount separately rather than as a struct path. The rules make perfect sense if you consider d_alloc() <-- reference on dentry d_instantiate() alloc_file() <-- reference on vfsmount so here file->f_path() is all good. Which a number of callers user. They make less sense when you consider something that is not allocating the dentry right there (like this path) dget(dentry); <-- reference here alloc_file() <-- reference on vfsmount; so here file->f_path is all good. It would be a reasonable interface if it took a struct path and then took a reference on the struct path. The second case would look more clean, but the first case would turn into d_alloc() d_instantiate() alloc_file() d_put() /* matches d_alloc() */ and alloc_file() Is this better? I'll gladly do it if other think so it makes more sense.... -Eric -- 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
