Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:09:53 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: shave work on failed file open
Message-ID: <20230927-kosmetik-babypuppen-75bee530b9f0@brauner>
References: <20230926162228.68666-1-mjguzik@gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjUCLfuKks-VGTG9hrFAORb5cuzqyC0gRXptYGGgL=YYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGudoHGej+gmmv0OOoep2ENkf7hMBib-KL44Fu=Ym46j=r6VEA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHGej+gmmv0OOoep2ENkf7hMBib-KL44Fu=Ym46j=r6VEA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> I don't have a strong opinion, I think my variant is cleaner and more
> generic, but this boils down to taste and this is definitely not the
> hill I'm willing to die on.

I kinda like the release_empty_file() approach but we should keep the
WARN_ON_ONCE() so we can see whether anyone is taking an extra reference
on this thing. It's super unlikely but I guess zebras exist and if some
(buggy) code were to call get_file() during ->open() and keep that
reference for some reason we'd want to know why. But I don't think
anything does that.

No need to resend I can massage this well enough in-tree.