On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 7:09 AM Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:53:00PM +0800, yulei zhang wrote:
>
> > > ... same here, seeing that you only call that thing from the next two
> > > functions
> > > and you do *not* provide ->mknod() as a method (unsurprisingly - what
> > > would
> > > device nodes do there?)
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out. we may need support the mknod method,
> > otherwise
> > the dev is redundant and need to be removed.
>
> I'd suggest turning that into (static) __create_file(....) with
>
> static int dmemfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> umode_t mode, bool excl)
> {
> return __create_file(dir, dentry, mode | S_IFREG);
> }
>
> static int dmemfs_mkdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> umode_t mode)
> {
> return __create_file(dir, dentry, mode | S_IFDIR);
> }
>
> (i.e. even inc_nlink() of parent folded into that).
>
> [snip]
>
> > Yes, we seperate the full implementation for dmemfs_file_mmap into
> > patch 05/35, it
> > will assign the interfaces to handle the page fault.
>
> It would be less confusing to move the introduction of ->mmap() to that patch,
> then.
Thanks for the suggestion. will refactor the patches accordingly.
