On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:00:05PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Do we really need the opendata structure? > > > > It seems like we could just pass a struct path instead of the dentry > > passed directly and the vfsmount in it. There should be no need to > > preallocate the file before calling into ->atomic_open, as it's only > > used to pass around f_flags - but we already pass that one to > > ->atomic_open directly and might as well pass it on to finish_open and > > allocate the file there. > > We really don't want to get into the situation where the open fails > after a successful create(*). Which means the file needs to be allocated > prior to calling ->atomic_open and needs to be passed to finish_open() > toghether with the vfsmount and dentry. > > In the first version of the patch I set filp->f_path.mnt to nd->path.mnt > and passed the half initialized filp to ->atomic_open. But then decided > that it's confusing for the filesystem code to deal with a half baked > filp (does it need to be fput on error? etc...) > > Doing it with an opaque opendata makes this cleaner I think. Make sense. Can you throw in another cleanup patch to really just make it a pass-through and not also use it as a boolean flag if open_flags should be obeyed? This probably will change sematincs for the various filesystems, but given that they should behave the same way that's a good thing. -- 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
