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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <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> <20230927-kosmetik-babypuppen-75bee530b9f0@brauner>
From:   Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:34:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGudoHGK8H18F0QSowb703m=5hsbP2hHvTjMArxoj4g5a0M7UA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: shave work on failed file open
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On 9/27/23, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>

Ok, I'm buggering off to other patches.

Thanks.

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>