On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 02:36:20AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > >> I'm still not sure what does "vfs: convert ->readlink to same signature as >> ->get_link" buy us. If anything, the result appears to be more complex - >> you make freeing that buffer delayed (and introduce a dynamically allocated >> buffer in one case that didn't use it)... Normally readlink(2) calls ->get_link() except if there's ->readlink(). So there's no added complexity in handling the delayed free since it's already there. In fact it allows for removal of complexity. But I think the diffstat of that last part speaks for itself: 11 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-) Btw, in the one case where we added the dynamically allocated buffer it had been: - guess max link size to be 50 (very scientifically I'm sure, but no explanation given) - call filler - hope it didn't get truncated Which is now - call filler to allocate correctly sized buffer Which isn't even much more complex. So I don't buy your arguments. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
