Re: [PATCH v2 04/12] docs: path-lookup: update do_last() part

[NeilBrown]

On Tue, Mar 16 2021, Fox Chen wrote:

> traling_symlink() was merged into lookup_last, do_last().
>
> do_last() has later been split into open_last_lookups()
> and do_open().
>
> see related commit: commit c5971b8c6354 ("take post-lookup
> part of do_last() out of loop")
>
> Signed-off-by: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst | 35 ++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
> index b6a301b78121..a65cb477d524 100644
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
> @@ -495,11 +495,11 @@ This is important when unmounting a filesystem that is inaccessible, such as
>  one provided by a dead NFS server.
>  
>  Finally ``path_openat()`` is used for the ``open()`` system call; it
> -contains, in support functions starting with "``do_last()``", all the
> +contains, in support functions starting with "``open_last_lookups()``", all the
>  complexity needed to handle the different subtleties of O_CREAT (with
>  or without O_EXCL), final "``/``" characters, and trailing symbolic
>  links.  We will revisit this in the final part of this series, which
> -focuses on those symbolic links.  "``do_last()``" will sometimes, but
> +focuses on those symbolic links.  "``open_last_lookups()``" will sometimes, but
>  not always, take ``i_rwsem``, depending on what it finds.
>  
>  Each of these, or the functions which call them, need to be alert to
> @@ -1199,26 +1199,27 @@ symlink.
>  This case is handled by the relevant caller of ``link_path_walk()``, such as
>  ``path_lookupat()`` using a loop that calls ``link_path_walk()``, and then
>  handles the final component.  If the final component is a symlink
> -that needs to be followed, then ``trailing_symlink()`` is called to set
> -things up properly and the loop repeats, calling ``link_path_walk()``
> -again.  This could loop as many as 40 times if the last component of
> -each symlink is another symlink.
> +that needs to be followed, then ``open_last_lookups()`` is
> +called to set things up properly and the loop repeats, calling
> +``link_path_walk()`` again.  This could loop as many as 40 times if the last
> +component of each symlink is another symlink.
>  
>  The various functions that examine the final component and possibly
> -report that it is a symlink are ``lookup_last()``, ``mountpoint_last()``
> -and ``do_last()``, each of which use the same convention as
> -``walk_component()`` of returning ``1`` if a symlink was found that needs
> -to be followed.
> +report that it is a symlink are ``lookup_last()``, ``open_last_lookups()``
> +, each of which use the same convention as
> +``walk_component()`` of returning ``char *name`` if a symlink was found that
> +needs to be followed.

This para no longer makes sense.
There is only one function that examines the final compoenent:
step_into()
It is called from open_last_lookups() directly and indirectly from
lookup_last() through walk_component().
But saying that here might be duplicating earlier text.

I think the key point in the para is that convention of returning a
'char *name' if a symlink was found.  The rest might now be redundant.

I think this needs a larger revision.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


>  
> -Of these, ``do_last()`` is the most interesting as it is used for
> -opening a file.  Part of ``do_last()`` runs with ``i_rwsem`` held and this
> -part is in a separate function: ``lookup_open()``.
> +Of these, ``open_last_lookups()`` is the most interesting as it works in tandem
> +with ``do_open()`` for opening a file.  Part of ``open_last_lookups()`` runs
> +with ``i_rwsem`` held and this part is in a separate function: ``lookup_open()``.
>  
> -Explaining ``do_last()`` completely is beyond the scope of this article,
> -but a few highlights should help those interested in exploring the
> -code.
> +Explaining ``open_last_lookups()`` and ``do_open()`` completely is beyond the scope
> +of this article, but a few highlights should help those interested in exploring
> +the code.
>  
> -1. Rather than just finding the target file, ``do_last()`` needs to open
> +1. Rather than just finding the target file, ``do_open()`` is used after
> +   ``open_last_lookup()`` to open
>     it.  If the file was found in the dcache, then ``vfs_open()`` is used for
>     this.  If not, then ``lookup_open()`` will either call ``atomic_open()`` (if
>     the filesystem provides it) to combine the final lookup with the open, or
> -- 
> 2.30.2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature