On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 05:36:51PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:27PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > we can rename kn_root to from here if you think that's clearer (and > > change the order here as well). > > I think it'd be better for them to be consistent and in the same order > - the target and then the optional base. > > > > Was converting the path functions to return > > > length too much work? If so, that's fine but please explain what > > > decisions were made. > > > > Yes, I had replied saying: > > > > |I can change that, but the callers right now don't re-try with > > |larger buffer anyway, so this would actually complicate them just > > |a smidgeon. Would you want them changed to do that? (pr_cont_kernfs_path > > |right now writes into a static char[] for instance) > > > > I can still make that change if you like. > > Oops, sorry I forgot about that. The reason why kernfs_path() is > written the current way was me being lazy. While I think it'd be > better to make the functions behave like normal string handling > functions if we're extending it, I don't think it's that important. > If it's easy, please go ahead. If not, we can get back to it later > when necessary. > > > > I skimmed through the series and spotted several other review points > > > which didn't get addressed. Can you please go over the previous > > > review cycle and address the review points? > > > > I did go through every email twice, once while making changes (one > > branch per response) and once while making changelog for each patch, > > sorry about whatever I missed. I'll go through each again. > > The other chunk I noticed was inline conversions of internal functions > which didn't seem to belong to the patch. I asked whether those were > stray chunks. Maybe the comment was too buried to notice? Anyways, > that part actually causes conflicts when applying to cgroup/for-4.5. > > There are a couple more things. > > * Can you please put the ns related decls after the regular cgroup > stuff in cgroup.h? > > * I think I might need to edit the documentation anyway but it'd be > great if you can make the namespace section more in line with the > rest of the documentation - e.g. s/CGroup/cgroup/ and more > structured sectioning.
Ok fwiw I've fixed up the arguments to kernfs_path_from_node, removed the inlines, and moved the ns related decls after the others in cgroup.h (i.e. done the easy stuff) in the 2015-12-09/cgroupns.3 branch of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sergeh/linux-security.git I'll address the rest either after next week or, hopefully, when I get a chance earlier. > At this point, it all generally looks good to me. Let's get the > nits out of the way and merge it. If you wanted to take the branch as is, then I'll do the documentation and pr_cont_kernfs_path() etc rewrite as separate patches, but I'll assume you'd like to at least wait for doc rewrite. -serge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
