Re: [patch 13/15] vfs: utimes cleanup

[Miklos Szeredi]

> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Untange the mess that is do_utimes()
> 
> A good idea to untangle this, but I'm not entirely happy with how it's
> done.
> 
> utimes_need_permission is a good helper and fine with me.
> 
> utimes_common is a good idea aswell, but I'd rather take the permission
> checks into it aswell, even if that means a little flag telling if
> file->f_mode should be checked or vfs_permission().

How would that be better?  There's zero commonality between the two
kinds of permission checks (other than utimes_need_permission()).

> do_fd_utimes sounds fine, but I don't like that name.  do_futimes maybe?

Whatever you prefer.  It's a static function, so it's not really a big
issue.

> and when the fd-side is sorted out the path side should probably be a
> helper aswell.  Then sys_utime/sys_utimes/arhc bits could call it directly,
> with the initial check in do_utimes separated out into a helper ala
> utimes_need_permission.  do_utimes should probably become do_futimesat
> at the point.

OK, makes sense.

Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/