On Thu 21-11-24 12:04:23, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:09 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > It is not that I object to "two bit constants". FMODE_FSNOTIFY_MASK is a
> > > two-bit constant and a good one. But the name clearly suggests it is not a
> > > single bit constant. When you have all FMODE_FOO and FMODE_BAR things
> > > single bit except for FMODE_BAZ which is multi-bit, then this is IMHO a
> > > recipe for problems and I rather prefer explicitely spelling the
> > > combination out as FMODE_NONOTIFY | FMODE_NONOTIFY_PERM in the few places
> > > that need this instead of hiding it behind some other name.
> >
> > Very much agreed!
>
> Yes, I agree as well.
> What I meant is that the code that does
> return FMODE_NONOTIFY | FMODE_NONOTIFY_PERM;
>
> is going to be unclear to the future code reviewer unless there is
> a comment above explaining that this is a special flag combination
> to specify "suppress only pre-content events".
So this combination is used in file_set_fsnotify_mode() only (three
occurences) and there I have:
/*
* If there are permission event watchers but no pre-content event
* watchers, set FMODE_NONOTIFY | FMODE_NONOTIFY_PERM to indicate that.
*/
at the first occurence. So hopefully that's enough of an explanation.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
