Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:38:06 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adityakali@google.com,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, lizefan@huawei.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] kernfs: Add API to generate relative kernfs path
Message-ID: <20151209213806.GP30240@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <1449689341-28742-1-git-send-email-serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
 <1449689341-28742-2-git-send-email-serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1449689341-28742-2-git-send-email-serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1626
Lines: 42

Hello, Serge.

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:28:54PM -0600, serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com wrote:
> +/* kernfs_node_depth - compute depth from @from to @to */
> +static size_t kernfs_depth(struct kernfs_node *from, struct kernfs_node *to)
...
> +char *kernfs_path(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf, size_t buflen)
> +{
> +	return kernfs_path_from_node(NULL, kn, buf, buflen);
> +}
...
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernfs.h b/include/linux/kernfs.h
> index 5d4e9c4..d025ebd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kernfs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernfs.h
> @@ -267,6 +267,9 @@ static inline bool kernfs_ns_enabled(struct kernfs_node *kn)
>  
>  int kernfs_name(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf, size_t buflen);
>  size_t kernfs_path_len(struct kernfs_node *kn);
> +char * __must_check kernfs_path_from_node(struct kernfs_node *root_kn,
> +					  struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf,
> +					  size_t buflen);

I think I commented on the same thing before, but I think it'd make
more sense to put @from after @to and the prototype is using @root_kn
which is a bit confusing.  Was converting the path functions to return
length too much work?  If so, that's fine but please explain what
decisions were made.

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?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/