Re: [PATCH 2/6] shmem: rename functions that are memfd-related

[Marc-Andrà Lureau]

Hi

----- Original Message -----
> On 10/31/2017 11:40 AM, Marc-Andrà Lureau wrote:
> > Those functions are called for memfd files, backed by shmem or
> > hugetlb (the next patches will handle hugetlb).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-Andrà Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  fs/fcntl.c               |  2 +-
> >  include/linux/shmem_fs.h |  4 ++--
> >  mm/shmem.c               | 10 +++++-----
> >  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/fcntl.c b/fs/fcntl.c
> > index 448a1119f0be..752c23743616 100644
> > --- a/fs/fcntl.c
> > +++ b/fs/fcntl.c
> > @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ static long do_fcntl(int fd, unsigned int cmd, unsigned
> > long arg,
> >  		break;
> >  	case F_ADD_SEALS:
> >  	case F_GET_SEALS:
> > -		err = shmem_fcntl(filp, cmd, arg);
> > +		err = memfd_fcntl(filp, cmd, arg);
> >  		break;
> >  	case F_GET_RW_HINT:
> >  	case F_SET_RW_HINT:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/shmem_fs.h b/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> > index 557d0c3b6eca..0dac8c0f4aa4 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> > @@ -109,11 +109,11 @@ extern void shmem_uncharge(struct inode *inode, long
> > pages);
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_TMPFS
> >  
> > -extern long shmem_fcntl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long
> > arg);
> > +extern long memfd_fcntl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long
> > arg);
> >  
> >  #else
> >  
> > -static inline long shmem_fcntl(struct file *f, unsigned int c, unsigned
> > long a)
> > +static inline long memfd_fcntl(struct file *f, unsigned int c, unsigned
> > long a)
> >  {
> >  	return -EINVAL;
> >  }
> 
> Do we want memfd_fcntl() to work for hugetlbfs if CONFIG_TMPFS is not
> defined?  I admit that having CONFIG_HUGETLBFS defined without CONFIG_TMPFS
> is unlikely, but I think possible.  Based on the above #ifdef/#else, I
> think hugetlbfs seals will not work if CONFIG_TMPFS is not defined.

Good point, memfd_create() will not exists either.

I think this is a separate concern, and preexisting from this patch series though.

Ack the function renaming part?

> --
> Mike Kravetz
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> > index 37260c5e12fa..b7811979611f 100644
> > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> > @@ -2722,7 +2722,7 @@ static int shmem_wait_for_pins(struct address_space
> > *mapping)
> >  		     F_SEAL_GROW | \
> >  		     F_SEAL_WRITE)
> >  
> > -static int shmem_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
> > +static int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
> >  {
> >  	struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> >  	struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> > @@ -2792,7 +2792,7 @@ static int shmem_add_seals(struct file *file,
> > unsigned int seals)
> >  	return error;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int shmem_get_seals(struct file *file)
> > +static int memfd_get_seals(struct file *file)
> >  {
> >  	if (file->f_op != &shmem_file_operations)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -2800,7 +2800,7 @@ static int shmem_get_seals(struct file *file)
> >  	return SHMEM_I(file_inode(file))->seals;
> >  }
> >  
> > -long shmem_fcntl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> > +long memfd_fcntl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> >  {
> >  	long error;
> >  
> > @@ -2810,10 +2810,10 @@ long shmem_fcntl(struct file *file, unsigned int
> > cmd, unsigned long arg)
> >  		if (arg > UINT_MAX)
> >  			return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > -		error = shmem_add_seals(file, arg);
> > +		error = memfd_add_seals(file, arg);
> >  		break;
> >  	case F_GET_SEALS:
> > -		error = shmem_get_seals(file);
> > +		error = memfd_get_seals(file);
> >  		break;
> >  	default:
> >  		error = -EINVAL;
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
>