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;
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:19:47 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        arve@android.com, tkjos@android.com, maco@android.com,
        rlove@google.com, ben@decadent.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] file: export functions for binder module
Message-ID: <20180730201947.GB12962@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20180730143710.14413-1-christian@brauner.io>
 <20180730163452.GE27761@infradead.org>
 <20180730201224.GA1081@mailbox.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180730201224.GA1081@mailbox.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:12:24PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > I don't expect this patch to be mergeable but rather to kick-off a
> > discussion if we can either simply export them as they are or how we can
> > get supportable exports that allow access to struct files_struct.
> 
> Maybe that wasn't obvious from the first message. Is there any way we
> can come up with a way to have versions of these functions that you
> would be fine with exporting?
> The point is that otherwise we would have to either duplicate the code
> or come up with something way more complex. If you have any pointer that
> would already help.

He said in the first reply this should probably be using an anonfd.
If you do that, I think all four of these exports go away.

And there was really no reason to post each of the four exports as
separate patches.  That just makes review harder on everyone.