Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] namei: O_BENEATH-style path resolution flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:57:45PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:

@@ -2350,9 +2400,11 @@ static const char *path_init(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags)
 			s = ERR_PTR(error);
 		return s;
 	}
-	error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
-	if (unlikely(error))
-		return ERR_PTR(error);
+	if (likely(!nd->path.mnt)) {

Is that a weird way of saying "if we hadn't already called dirfd_path_init()"?

Yes. I did it to be more consistent with the other "have we got the
root" checks elsewhere. Is there another way you'd prefer I do it?

"Have we got the root" checks are inevitable evil; here you are making the
control flow in a single function hard to follow.

I *think* what you are doing is
	absolute pathname, no LOOKUP_BENEATH:
		set_root
		error = nd_jump_root(nd)
	else
		error = dirfd_path_init(nd)
	return unlikely(error) ? ERR_PTR(error) : s;
which should be a lot easier to follow (not to mention shorter), but I might
be missing something in all of that.



[Index of Archives]     [Video for Linux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux S/390]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux