Re: [GIT PULL] readlink cleanup

[Miklos Szeredi]

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
complexity.

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.

Thanks,
Miklos