Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:22 AM Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> Fox Chen writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:33:00AM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:17 AM Matthew Wilcox
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > You can drop ``..`` from around function named which are followed with
> >> > > (). d74b0d31ddde ("Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx")
> >> > > marks them up automatically.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Got it, thanks for letting me know. But I will still use them in this
> >> > patch series to keep consistency with the remaining parts of the
> >> > document.
> >>
> >> Well, you weren't. For example:
> >>
> >> +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called
> >> either
> >> +directly from walk_component() or from handle_dots(). It calls
> >> +``handle_mount()``, to check and handle mount points, in which a new
> >>
> >> Neither of the functions on the second line were using ``.
> >
> > Oh, That was a mistake, They should've been wrapped with ``.
> > Thanks for pointing it out. I will go through the whole patch set and
> > fix this type of inconsistency in V3.
>
> Please, if possible, go toward the bare function() form rather than
> using literals...it's easier to read and the docs system will
> automatically create cross references for you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
Ok, If you have no problem with that inconsistency, I will go with the
bare one in v3.
thanks,
fox
Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
Fox Chen writes:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:33:00AM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:17 AM Matthew Wilcox
>> > wrote:
>> > > You can drop ``..`` from around function named which are followed with
>> > > (). d74b0d31ddde ("Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx")
>> > > marks them up automatically.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Got it, thanks for letting me know. But I will still use them in this
>> > patch series to keep consistency with the remaining parts of the
>> > document.
>>
>> Well, you weren't. For example:
>>
>> +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called
>> either
>> +directly from walk_component() or from handle_dots(). It calls
>> +``handle_mount()``, to check and handle mount points, in which a new
>>
>> Neither of the functions on the second line were using ``.
>
> Oh, That was a mistake, They should've been wrapped with ``.
> Thanks for pointing it out. I will go through the whole patch set and
> fix this type of inconsistency in V3.
Please, if possible, go toward the bare function() form rather than
using literals...it's easier to read and the docs system will
automatically create cross references for you.
Thanks,
jon
Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:33:00AM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:17 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:47:16PM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > > -In the absence of symbolic links, ``walk_component()`` creates a new
> > > > +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be
> > > > called either
> > >
> > > You can drop ``..`` from around function named which are followed with
> > > (). d74b0d31ddde ("Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx")
> > > marks them up automatically.
> > >
> >
> > Got it, thanks for letting me know. But I will still use them in this
> > patch series to keep consistency with the remaining parts of the
> > document.
>
> Well, you weren't. For example:
>
> +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called
> either
> +directly from walk_component() or from handle_dots(). It calls
> +``handle_mount()``, to check and handle mount points, in which a new
>
> Neither of the functions on the second line were using ``.
Oh, That was a mistake, They should've been wrapped with ``.
Thanks for pointing it out. I will go through the whole patch set and
fix this type of inconsistency in V3.
thanks,
fox
Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:33:00AM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:17 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:47:16PM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > > -In the absence of symbolic links, ``walk_component()`` creates a new
> > > +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called
> > > either
> >
> > You can drop ``..`` from around function named which are followed with
> > (). d74b0d31ddde ("Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx")
> > marks them up automatically.
> >
>
> Got it, thanks for letting me know. But I will still use them in this
> patch series to keep consistency with the remaining parts of the
> document.
Well, you weren't. For example:
+As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called either
+directly from walk_component() or from handle_dots(). It calls
+``handle_mount()``, to check and handle mount points, in which a new
Neither of the functions on the second line were using ``.
Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:17 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:47:16PM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > -In the absence of symbolic links, ``walk_component()`` creates a new
> > +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called
> > either
>
> You can drop ``..`` from around function named which are followed with
> (). d74b0d31ddde ("Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx")
> marks them up automatically.
>
Got it, thanks for letting me know. But I will still use them in this
patch series to keep consistency with the remaining parts of the
document.
thanks,
fox
Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:47:16PM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> -In the absence of symbolic links, ``walk_component()`` creates a new
> +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called
> either
You can drop ``..`` from around function named which are followed with
(). d74b0d31ddde ("Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx")
marks them up automatically.
Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
On Tue, Mar 16 2021, Fox Chen wrote:
> No follow_managed() anymore, handle_mounts(),
> traverse_mounts(), will do the job.
> see commit 9deed3ebca24 ("new helper: traverse_mounts()")
>
> Signed-off-by: Fox Chen
> ---
> Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst | 10 +-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
> b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
> index c482e1619e77..d07766375e13 100644
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
> @@ -448,10 +448,11 @@ described. If it finds a ``LAST_NORM`` component it
> first calls
> filesystem to revalidate the result if it is that sort of filesystem.
> If that doesn't get a good result, it calls "``lookup_slow()``" which
> takes ``i_rwsem``, rechecks the cache, and then asks the filesystem
> -to find a definitive answer. Each of these will call
> -``follow_managed()`` (as described below) to handle any mount points.
> +to find a definitive answer.
>
> -In the absence of symbolic links, ``walk_component()`` creates a new
> +As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called
> either
> +directly from walk_component() or from handle_dots(). It calls
> +``handle_mount()``, to check and handle mount points, in which a new
Typo - it is "handle_mounts", not "handle_mount"
With that fixed:
Reviewed-by: NeilBrown
Thanks,
NeilBrown
> ``struct path`` containing a counted reference to the new dentry and a
> reference to the new ``vfsmount`` which is only counted if it is
> different from the previous ``vfsmount``. It then calls
> @@ -535,8 +536,7 @@ covered in greater detail in autofs.txt in the Linux
> documentation
> tree, but a few notes specifically related to path lookup are in order
> here.
>
> -The Linux VFS has a concept of "managed" dentries which is reflected
> -in function names such as "``follow_managed()``". There are three
> +The Linux VFS has a concept of "managed" dentries. There are three
> potentially interesting things about these dentries corresponding
> to three different flags that might be set in ``dentry->d_flags``:
>
> --
> 2.30.2
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[PATCH v2 01/12] docs: path-lookup: update follow_managed() part
No follow_managed() anymore, handle_mounts(),
traverse_mounts(), will do the job.
see commit 9deed3ebca24 ("new helper: traverse_mounts()")
Signed-off-by: Fox Chen
---
Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst | 10 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
index c482e1619e77..d07766375e13 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
@@ -448,10 +448,11 @@ described. If it finds a ``LAST_NORM`` component it
first calls
filesystem to revalidate the result if it is that sort of filesystem.
If that doesn't get a good result, it calls "``lookup_slow()``" which
takes ``i_rwsem``, rechecks the cache, and then asks the filesystem
-to find a definitive answer. Each of these will call
-``follow_managed()`` (as described below) to handle any mount points.
+to find a definitive answer.
-In the absence of symbolic links, ``walk_component()`` creates a new
+As the last step of ``walk_component()``, ``step_into()`` will be called either
+directly from walk_component() or from handle_dots(). It calls
+``handle_mount()``, to check and handle mount points, in which a new
``struct path`` containing a counted reference to the new dentry and a
reference to the new ``vfsmount`` which is only counted if it is
different from the previous ``vfsmount``. It then calls
@@ -535,8 +536,7 @@ covered in greater detail in autofs.txt in the Linux
documentation
tree, but a few notes specifically related to path lookup are in order
here.
-The Linux VFS has a concept of "managed" dentries which is reflected
-in function names such as "``follow_managed()``". There are three
+The Linux VFS has a concept of "managed" dentries. There are three
potentially interesting things about these dentries corresponding
to three different flags that might be set in ``dentry->d_flags``:
--
2.30.2
