Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87ft8l6ic3.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20200817220425.9389-9-ebiederm@xmission.com>
 <CAHk-=whCU_psWXHod0-WqXXKB4gKzgW9q=d_ZEFPNATr3kG=QQ@mail.gmail.com> <875z9g7oln.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
In-Reply-To: <875z9g7oln.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:17:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjk_CnGHt4LBi2WsOeYOxE5j79R8xHzZytCy8t-_9orQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/17] file: Implement fnext_task
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        criu@openvz.org, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
        Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2E_Berrang=C3=A9?= <berrange@redhat.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
        Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:06 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> I struggle with the fcheck name as I have not seen or at least not
> registed on the the user that just checks to see if the result is NULL.
> So the name fcheck never made a bit of sense to me.

Yeah, that name is not great. I just don't want to make things even worse.

> I will see if I can come up with some good descriptive comments around
> these functions.  Along with describing what these things are doing I am
> thinking maybe I should put "_rcu" in their names and have a debug check
> that verifies "_rcu" is held.

Yeah, something along the lines of "rcu_lookup_fd_task(tsk,fd)" would
be a *lot* more descriptive than fcheck_task().

And I think "fnext_task()" could be "rcu_lookup_next_fd_task(tsk,fd)".

Yes, those are much longer names, but it's not like you end up typing
them all that often, and I think being descriptive would be worth it.

And "fcheck()" and "fcheck_files()" would be good to rename too along
the same lines.

Something like "rcu_lookup_fd()" and "rcu_lookup_fd_files()" respectively?

I'm obviously trying to go for a "rcu_lookup_fd*()" kind of pattern,
and I'm not married to _that_ particular pattern but I think it would
be better than what we have now.

                       Linus