Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 17:36:51 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Serge Hallyn <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: <20151209223651.GQ30240@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <1449689341-28742-1-git-send-email-serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
 <1449689341-28742-2-git-send-email-serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
 <20151209213806.GP30240@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20151209221327.GA13029@ubuntumail>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151209221327.GA13029@ubuntumail>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2518
Lines: 64

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.

At this point, it all generally looks good to me.  Let's get the
nits out of the way and merge it.

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/