Re: [PATCH v12 20/31] fs/resctrl: Refactor mkdir_mondata_subdir()

[Reinette Chatre]

Hi Tony,

On 10/28/25 10:14 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 09:00:46AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 10/27/25 4:00 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:45:06AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>> +	sprintf(name, "mon_sub_%s_%02d", r->name, hdr->id);
>>>>> +	ckn = kernfs_create_dir(kn, name, parent_kn->mode, prgrp);
>>>>
>>>> Noting here that kn was created earlier with mode of parent_kn->mode. It thus looks to me like
>>>> above can also be written as:
>>>> 	ckn = kernfs_create_dir(kn, name, kn->mode, prgrp);
>>>>
>>>> The reason I mention this is that this patch adds a third copy of a very similar code snippet
>>>> (kernfs_create_dir(), rdtgroup_kn_set_ugid(), mon_add_all_files()) that looks like a good
>>>> candidate for a helper?
>>>
>>> I looked at this. But the helper needs a lot of arguments to cover these
>>> three cases. Something like:
>>>
>>> static struct kernfs_node *make_and_fill_mondir(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
>>> 						char *name, umode_t mode,
>>
>> I aimed to preempt a response like this in the text you quoted that notes that
>> a "mode" argument does not seem necessary. Are you hinting that mode is indeed
>> required? If not, without "mode" there are six arguments which is just one more
>> than mon_add_all_files() that will be called by it.
>> What is the threshold for there being too many arguments? This series does not seem
>> to have trouble pushing an arch API call resctrl_arch_rmid_read() to eight arguments
>> while there is a concern with the number of arguments of this static call that has
>> fewer?
> 
> Ok. you have me convinced. Since this helper will be the only caller
> of mon_add_all_files(), would it be good to just add the extra args
> needed to this function and have it create the directory and add the
> files? It would need a new name to describe the added functions it
> performs. Maybe mon_add_domain_dir()? But better suggestions welcomed.

Modifying mon_add_all_files() sounds good. I assume the node activation (kernfs_active())
will still be done by the caller which would have this new function return a struct kernfs_node *?
If so, I think it will make code easier to read if name implies that a new kn is created.
Since the caller is already mkdir_mondata_subdir(), what do you think of _mkdir_mondata_subdir()?

Reinette