From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
To: Stefan Roesch <[email protected]>
Cc: io-uring <[email protected]>,
linux-fsdevel <[email protected]>,
Kernel Team <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] fs: split off do_getxattr from getxattr
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 09:22:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whChmLy02-degmLFC9sgwpdgmF=XoAjeF1bTdHcEc8bdQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 8:50 AM Stefan Roesch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This splits off do_getxattr function from the getxattr
> function. This will allow io_uring to call it from its
> io worker.
Hmm.
My reaction to this one is
"Why isn't do_getxattr() using 'struct xattr_ctx' for its context?"
As far as I can tell, that's *exactly* what it wants, and it would be
logical to match up with the setxattr side.
Yeah, yeah, setxattr has a 'const void __user *value' while getxattr
obviously has just a 'void __user *value'. But if the cost of having a
unified interface is that you lose the 'const' part for the setxattr,
I think that's still a good thing.
Yes? No? Comments?
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-21 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-21 16:49 [PATCH v5 0/5] io_uring: add xattr support Stefan Roesch
2021-12-21 16:49 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] fs: split off do_user_path_at_empty from user_path_at_empty() Stefan Roesch
2021-12-21 16:49 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] fs: split off setxattr_setup function from setxattr Stefan Roesch
2021-12-21 16:49 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] fs: split off do_getxattr from getxattr Stefan Roesch
2021-12-21 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2021-12-21 19:15 ` Stefan Roesch
2021-12-21 19:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-21 21:59 ` Stefan Roesch
2021-12-21 22:57 ` Jens Axboe
2021-12-21 16:49 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] io_uring: add fsetxattr and setxattr support Stefan Roesch
2021-12-21 16:49 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] io_uring: add fgetxattr and getxattr support Stefan Roesch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAHk-=whChmLy02-degmLFC9sgwpdgmF=XoAjeF1bTdHcEc8bdQ@mail.gmail.com' \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox