Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] fsnotify: pass arguments of fsnotify() in struct fsnotify_event_info

On Thu 08-07-21 14:09:43, Amir Goldstein wrote:

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:43 PM Jan Kara [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue 29-06-21 15:10:27, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/fsnotify.h b/include/linux/fsnotify.h
index f8acddcf54fb..8c2c681b4495 100644
--- a/include/linux/fsnotify.h
+++ b/include/linux/fsnotify.h

@@ -30,7 +30,10 @@ static inline void fsnotify_name(struct inode *dir, __u32 mask,
                               struct inode *child,
                               const struct qstr *name, u32 cookie)
 {
-     fsnotify(mask, child, FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE, dir, name, NULL, cookie);
+     __fsnotify(mask, &(struct fsnotify_event_info) {
+                     .data = child, .data_type = FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE,
+                     .dir = dir, .name = name, .cookie = cookie,
+                     });
 }

Hmm, maybe we could have a macro initializer like:

#define FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INFO(data, data_type, dir, name, inode, cookie)  \
        (struct fsnotify_event_info) {                                  \
                .data = (data), .data_type = (data_type), .dir = (dir), \
                .name = (name), .inode = (inode), .cookie = (cookie)}

Then we'd have:
        __fsnotify(mask, &FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INFO(child, FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE,
                                dir, name, NULL, cookie));

Which looks a bit nicer to me. What do you think guys?

Sure, looks good.
But I think it would be even better to have different "wrapper defines" like
FSNOTIFY_NAME_EVENT_INFO() will less irrelevant arguments.

If we don't overdo it, I agree :) I mean if we end up with a different
helper for each site creating this structure, I'm not sure it helps much...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR