Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Nov 2011 06:50:14 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 16/28] namespace: checkpatch wanking |
| |
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 07:39:11PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> No worries. > > I think patches 1 thru 14 are reasonable though > and do apply with a few offsets to vfsmount-guts.
OK... BTW, speaking of this one:
-static int mnt_id_start = 0; +static int mnt_id_start; static int mnt_group_start = 1;
this deserves a separate NAK; explicit init here is actually more clear - the variable is more or less analogous to mnt_group_start and it's less distracting to have initializers spelled out in similar way as well.
- if ((child_mnt = __lookup_mnt(path->mnt, path->dentry, 1))) + child_mnt = __lookup_mnt(path->mnt, path->dentry, 1); + if (child_mnt) mntget(child_mnt); br_read_unlock(&vfsmount_lock); return child_mnt;
Maybe, maybe not; in the #vfsmount-guts I seriously pondered turning that into child_mnt = ...; if (child_mnt) { mnt_add_count(child_mnt); br_read_unlock(...); return &child_mnt->mnt; } else { br_read_unlock(...); return NULL; } Hell knows... Since __lookup_mnt() returns struct mount now *and* lookup_mnt() returns struct vfsmount (much shrunk subset of the original; almost nothing in there is needed for anything outside of core VFS code) we need if or ?: after unlock as well. So it might make sense to split the codepaths once...
- if (flags & MNT_FORCE && sb->s_op->umount_begin) { + if (flags & MNT_FORCE && sb->s_op->umount_begin) sb->s_op->umount_begin(sb); - }
Probably. It used to be just a method call, then it had grown lock/unlock around it, then lock went down into the method instances and the compound statement stayed. -static int do_add_mount(struct vfsmount *newmnt, struct path *path, int mnt_flags) +static int +do_add_mount(struct vfsmount *newmnt, struct path *path, int mnt_flags)
I don't mind BSD style like that, but again, check #vfsmount-guts; this one takes struct mount * now, so that line happens to be below 80 cols.
-static int select_submounts(struct vfsmount *parent, struct list_head *graveyard) +static int +select_submounts(struct vfsmount *parent, struct list_head *graveyard)
Ditto.
- struct vfsmount *mnt = list_entry(tmp, struct vfsmount, mnt_child); + struct vfsmount *mnt = list_entry(tmp, struct vfsmount, + mnt_child);
Ditto (mnt_child moved into struct mount now) - if (!(page = __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL))) + page = __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL); + if (!page) return -ENOMEM;
Not sure... In general I'd agree, but in this case...
| |