Re: [PATCH 6/8] simplefs: add file creation functions
On 20/04/20 16:28, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> I assume you meant a new file. These new functions are used only by a few >> filesystems, and I didn't want to include them in vmlinux unconditionally, >> so I introduced simplefs.c and CONFIG_SIMPLEFS instead of extending libfs.c. >> In this way only fs that need this code like debugfs and tracefs will load >> it. > Nothing "loads it", why not just make these libfs functions instead? As > the difference between the two is not obvious at all, please don't make > things confusing. I think Emanuele meant "will link it" not "will load it". Emanuele, you can just move everything to libfs.c and get rid of CONFIG_SIMPLEFS too. "Do less" is not an offer you want to turn down! Thanks, Paolo ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH 6/8] simplefs: add file creation functions
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 03:57:48PM +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: > > > On 4/14/20 2:56 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 02:43:00PM +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: > > > A bunch of code is duplicated between debugfs and tracefs, unify it to the > > > simplefs library. > > > > > > The code is very similar, except that dentry and inode creation are > > > unified > > > into a single function (unlike start_creating in debugfs and tracefs, > > > which > > > only takes care of dentries). This adds an output parameter to the > > > creation > > > functions, but pushes all error recovery into fs/simplefs.c. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito > > > --- > > > fs/simplefs.c| 150 +++ > > > include/linux/simplefs.h | 19 + > > > 2 files changed, 169 insertions(+) > > > > What's wrong with libfs, isn't that supposed to be for these types of > > "common" filesystem interactions? > > > > Why create a whole "new" fs for this? > > I assume you meant a new file. These new functions are used only by a few > filesystems, and I didn't want to include them in vmlinux unconditionally, > so I introduced simplefs.c and CONFIG_SIMPLEFS instead of extending libfs.c. > In this way only fs that need this code like debugfs and tracefs will load > it. Nothing "loads it", why not just make these libfs functions instead? As the difference between the two is not obvious at all, please don't make things confusing. thanks, greg k-h ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH 6/8] simplefs: add file creation functions
On 4/14/20 2:56 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 02:43:00PM +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: A bunch of code is duplicated between debugfs and tracefs, unify it to the simplefs library. The code is very similar, except that dentry and inode creation are unified into a single function (unlike start_creating in debugfs and tracefs, which only takes care of dentries). This adds an output parameter to the creation functions, but pushes all error recovery into fs/simplefs.c. Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito --- fs/simplefs.c| 150 +++ include/linux/simplefs.h | 19 + 2 files changed, 169 insertions(+) What's wrong with libfs, isn't that supposed to be for these types of "common" filesystem interactions? Why create a whole "new" fs for this? I assume you meant a new file. These new functions are used only by a few filesystems, and I didn't want to include them in vmlinux unconditionally, so I introduced simplefs.c and CONFIG_SIMPLEFS instead of extending libfs.c. In this way only fs that need this code like debugfs and tracefs will load it. Thank you, Emanuele ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH 6/8] simplefs: add file creation functions
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 02:43:00PM +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: > A bunch of code is duplicated between debugfs and tracefs, unify it to the > simplefs library. > > The code is very similar, except that dentry and inode creation are unified > into a single function (unlike start_creating in debugfs and tracefs, which > only takes care of dentries). This adds an output parameter to the creation > functions, but pushes all error recovery into fs/simplefs.c. > > Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito > --- > fs/simplefs.c| 150 +++ > include/linux/simplefs.h | 19 + > 2 files changed, 169 insertions(+) What's wrong with libfs, isn't that supposed to be for these types of "common" filesystem interactions? Why create a whole "new" fs for this? thanks, greg k-h ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
