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: <20180917141950.111841-1-nixiaoming@huawei.com>
 <CAOQ4uxj_o9FP8EH9_=TX=Tv9WDfExykrni7OjE3992YZrJDpZg@mail.gmail.com> <E490CD805F7529488761C40FD9D26EF12A7B97FA@DGGEMM527-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <E490CD805F7529488761C40FD9D26EF12A7B97FA@DGGEMM527-MBS.china.huawei.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:06:58 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxg+BE5pkN5Mi3Z8ShA=s69Jp+whOsJ3+0BP-1NMK769_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fanotify reports the thread id of the event trigger
To:     nixiaoming@huawei.com
Cc:     Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:01 AM Nixiaoming <nixiaoming@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 11:51 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:05 PM nixiaoming <nixiaoming@huawei.com> wrote:
...
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h b/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h
> >> index b8f4182..44c659f 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/fsnotify_backend.h
> >> @@ -193,6 +193,7 @@ struct fsnotify_group {
> >>                         unsigned int max_marks;
> >>                         struct user_struct *user;
> >>                         bool audit;
> >> +                       bool should_report_tid;
> >
> >For brevity I would call that report_tid, but not insisting.
> >
>
> Whether it is better to change to "unsigned int flags"
> Save "group->fanotify_data.flags=flags;" in "fanotify_init"
> Determine whether "group->fanotify_data.flags" contains "FAN_EVENT_INFO_TID" in "fanotify_alloc_event";
>
> At the same time, if there are other flags that need to be used later, there is no need to add new members.
>
> By the way, whether or not "bool audit" can also be included by flags
>

I strongly agree. Didn't want to impose this change on you, but in
fact, I already did
that in my own patch set, so you can use my patches as reference:
https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commit/5225fe1e19c74f4d7a4a4cc98ff6ef5872c8e620
https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commit/0d1a226f5c18012f19ed6eabfab46f0f125ec190

If you do this you need to separate your change into 2 patches.
First make the fanotify_data.flags change collecting the pieces from both
my patches.
Then make your TID change using fanotify_data.flags.

Thanks,
Amir.