On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 12:55:40PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > IF we don't care about that, we might as well take fsnotify_open()
> > out of vfs_open() and, for do_open()/do_tmpfile()/do_o_path(), into
> > path_openat() itself. I mean, having
> > if (likely(!error)) {
> > if (likely(file->f_mode & FMODE_OPENED)) {
> > fsnotify_open(file);
> > return file;
> > }
> > in there would be a lot easier to follow... It would lose fsnotify_open()
> > in a few more failure exits, but if we don't give a damn about having it
> > paired with fsnotify_close()...
> >
>
> Should we have fsnotify_open() set a new ->f_mode flag, and
> fsnotify_close() abort if it isn't set (and clear it if it is)?
> Then we would be guaranteed a balance - which does seem like a good
> idea.
Umm... In that case, I would rather have FMODE_NONOTIFY set just before
the fput() in path_openat() - no need to grab another flag from ->f_mode
(not a lot of unused ones there) and no need to add any overhead on
the fast path.
