On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:51:58PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 03:46:17PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > +static int read_name_gen = 1; > > > +#define SSC_READ_NAME_BODY "ssc_read_%d" > > > + > > ... > > > + res = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > > + len = strlen(SSC_READ_NAME_BODY) + 16; > > > + read_name = kzalloc(len, GFP_NOFS); > > > + if (read_name == NULL) > > > + goto out; > > > + snprintf(read_name, len, SSC_READ_NAME_BODY, read_name_gen++); > > ... > > > + filep = alloc_file_pseudo(r_ino, ss_mnt, read_name, FMODE_READ, > > > + r_ino->i_fop); > > > > So, I"m curious: does this "name" ever get used anywhere? Can you see > > it from userspace somehow, for example? Does it have some debugging > > value? Or could it just be the empty string? > > Name isn't seen anywhere (nor is the mount visible to the use -- ie > doing a mount command). It's needed to create a file structure to > represent the file opened the source server (without the open). > Honestly, I'm not sure what kind of weirdness can arise from having an > empty name string. I doubt the name matters. > Is there a reason for not trying to generate unique > names for this? I doubt it's a problem, really, just a little unnecessary code. --b.
