Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2021 21:09:17 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] remove PDE_DATA() |
| |
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 17:35:14 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> wrote:
> I found a bug [1] some days ago, which is because we want to use > inode->i_private to pass user private data. However, this is wrong > on proc fs. We provide a specific function PDE_DATA() to get user > private data. Actually, we can hide this detail by storing > PDE()->data into inode->i_private and removing PDE_DATA() completely. > The user could use inode->i_private to get user private data just > like debugfs does. This series is trying to remove PDE_DATA().
Why can't we do
/* * comment goes here */ static inline void *PDE_DATA(struct inode *inode) { return inode->i_private; }
to abstract things a bit and to reduce the patch size?
otoh, that upper-case thing needs to go, so the patch size remains the same anyway.
And perhaps we should have a short-term
#define PDE_DATA(i) pde_data(i)
because new instances are sure to turn up during the development cycle.
But I can handle that by staging the patch series after linux-next and reminding myself to grep for new PDE_DATA instances prior to upstreaming.
| |