Re: add file system helpers that take kernel pointers for the init code v4
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2020-07-31 02:14:33
Also in:
linux-api, linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:25:24AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 08:51:17PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 06:33:53PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:quoted
Hi Al and Linus, currently a lot of the file system calls in the early in code (and the devtmpfs kthread) rely on the implicit set_fs(KERNEL_DS) during boot. This is one of the few last remaining places we need to deal with to kill off set_fs entirely, so this series adds new helpers that take kernel pointers. These helpers are in init/ and marked __init and thus will be discarded after bootup. A few also need to be duplicated in devtmpfs, though unfortunately. The series sits on top of my previous "decruft the early init / initrd / initramfs code v2"Could you fold the fixes in the parent branch to avoid the bisect hazards? As it is, you have e.g. "initd: pass a non-f_pos offset to kernel_read/kernel_write" that ought to go into "initrd: switch initrd loading to struct file based APIs"...I'm not a huge fan of rebasing after it has been out for a long time and with pending other patches on top of it. But at your request I've now folded the fixes and force pushed it.
Um...
Christoph Hellwig (28):
[snip]
initramfs: switch initramfs unpacking to struct file based APIs
initramfs: switch initramfs unpacking to struct file based APIs
[snip]
It's not a bisect hazard, of course, but if you don't fold those
together, you might at least want to give the second one a different
commit summary... I hadn't been able to find an analogue of #init_path on
top of that either.
As it is, #init-user-pointers is fine (aside of that SNAFU with unfolded
pair of commits), and so's the contents of #init_path part following what
used to be #init-user-pointers, but it'll be an awful mess on merge in
the current shape.
I can sort it out myself, if you don't mind that; again, I'm OK with
the contents and I've no problem with doing reordering/folding.