Re: [PATCH 2/3] exfat: remove useless check in exfat_move_file()

[Tetsuhiro Kohada]

> > > It might check if the cluster numbers are same between source entry
> > > and target directory.
> >
> > This checks if newdir is the move target itself.
> > Example:
> >     mv /mnt/dir0 /mnt/dir0/foo
> >
> > However, this check is not enough.
> > We need to check newdir and all ancestors.
> > Example:
> >     mv /mnt/dir0 /mnt/dir0/dir1/foo
> >     mv /mnt/dir0 /mnt/dir0/dir1/dir2/foo
> >     ...
> >
> > This is probably a taboo for all layered filesystems.
> >
> >
> > > Could you let me know what code you mentioned?
> > > Or do you mean the codes on vfs?
> >
> > You can find in do_renameat2(). --- around 'fs/namei.c:4440'
> > If the destination ancestors are itself, our driver will not be called.
>
> I think, of course, vfs has been doing that.
> So that code is unnecessary in normal situations.
>
> That code comes from the old exfat implementation.

It could be a remnant of another system.
Once upon a time, I moved the dir to a descendant dir without implementing this check
and it disappeared forever.
linux-VFS fixed this issue immediately, but some systems still need to be checked by
the driver itself. (ex.Windows-IFS)


> And as far as I understand, it seems to check once more "the cluster number"
> even though it comes through vfs so that it tries detecting abnormal of on-disk.
>
> Anyway, I agonized if it is really needed.
> In conclusion, old code could be eliminated and your patch looks reasonable.

It's easy to add, but it's really hard to remove the ancient code.


BTW
I have a question for you.
Now, I'm trying to optimize exfat_get_dentry().
However, exfat_get_dentry() is used a lot, so the patch is also large.
In such a case
-Replace old implementation with new ones with a single patch.
-Devide multiple patches in which old functions and new functions (ex. exfat_get_dentry2) coexist temporarily. And finally clean up.

I understand that a small patch is desirable, but the latter has "two similar functions".
Which is better for you to review the patch?


BR
---
Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@xxxxxxxxx>