Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180711021136.GN30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20180711022206.12571-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180711022206.12571-16-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20180711022206.12571-16-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:44:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyoQkoRm5sGaXpxtrr8au1mgr1_+khY=St0o7NRd5qw8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 16/42] now we can fold open_check_o_direct() into do_dentry_open()
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I like the patch, I hate the commit message.

It makes sense right now in this sequence, but I'd really like the
commit message to say _why_ this sequence led up to this point.

Right now I still remember you trying this, and having to revert it
because it didn't work before all the fput/put_filp issues. But a year
from now? Five years from now?

So at least a "now that fput() works regardless of how far the open
got.." kind of explanation, ok?

              Linus