Re: [GIT PULL] readlink cleanup

From: Miklos Szeredi
Date: Sun Dec 11 2016 - 05:01:40 EST

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 02:36:20AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> I'm still not sure what does "vfs: convert ->readlink to same signature as
>> ->get_link" buy us. If anything, the result appears to be more complex -
>> you make freeing that buffer delayed (and introduce a dynamically allocated
>> buffer in one case that didn't use it)...

Normally readlink(2) calls ->get_link() except if there's
->readlink(). So there's no added complexity in handling the delayed
free since it's already there. In fact it allows for removal of

But I think the diffstat of that last part speaks for itself:

11 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-)

Btw, in the one case where we added the dynamically allocated buffer
it had been:

- guess max link size to be 50 (very scientifically I'm sure, but no
explanation given)
- call filler
- hope it didn't get truncated

Which is now

- call filler to allocate correctly sized buffer

Which isn't even much more complex. So I don't buy your arguments.