From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104DDC10DCE for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:32:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A952074F for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:32:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584145972; bh=6H0PWzivS9YOvpc9z9KlyRLmW7t0JdHUfNBBy4MO9mE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=lojBAAXiEVhMcWBnG9nXlrcY65Pzl3ql7XqRz1K0UZRUeXbkR6HOkxOQhX7SIeO7+ zLk/T9fRKPXgvms/BeTKHeM2c3uxdJs/h0+vIzLELH/fl3L0254Gp+Wv56bJtbwbed 2UDbtH4FyPGy8ghLk6tBgHlpcT9EO/iFyc/2XLV0= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727714AbgCNAcv (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:32:51 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com ([209.85.167.68]:35170 "EHLO mail-lf1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727618AbgCNAcv (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:32:51 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id 5so2217367lfr.2 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:32:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qMErMaHHZEfJVKdh/LzqKM9AZGPTHK1128Br06lV9rE=; b=JmPs2t4VMNb7SjMik/nBvMjmm/0Ai21M6NG4Z1pEN2TGml1icBZolBKPU+MTFR3qov C1LT6aoBLNUDsT3oWiCnD8Vef9FBCVjYIeLZIDa7ayvP1kbcvKufavDoziWrLSjL1wbZ XsQq4CJwAGFvry6iJ4FZN1XfsilMkYlq1eU+c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qMErMaHHZEfJVKdh/LzqKM9AZGPTHK1128Br06lV9rE=; b=qn7EsPXfs8qKhkhNzZ9aRUwrNVq7KiN6i1GxtjYfFz7OkzmXtuPtgZZ3h1Kxbe/iDy Xwlg91PpgDMmInjRUS3iUG+IWDsOVaxUcR574DmV8YUp3c1+paZrwQpegNyerwVj33VO PrtDEXkLdw6iN0QVXZhNC6pqJxxzBFj5Esj78ApGCZOjOy+Q+B8Kfdf5nY6SqsFBheaP Jqk+K9HbicCTnlxtysWjtjCGar2Xa9H0wJjQrxnud7pjSOKz5gx1MCVFilaUWT9zsx2u aHn/+OhHdGW7uhKqlIKpdperjPjngKJB9KFMQhtQFbhvRsH/Mvkl8G3IedsY/WgvMBG+ GssA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3SC/22RG07EfL6WOngXpy2MD19IHdXH+rlmQOksPl7L7Rb/wW/ 7p6+aG7ykkSspP9umnJPnqQYeM5zWFk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtNTFgWh40CpmUvmUcKgpCMvSwyAwXFk3Z2apKtJHTB+45cNXDdBjxUK4z/ILNYivkYZkzZ9Q== X-Received: by 2002:a19:484a:: with SMTP id v71mr9263655lfa.199.1584145969539; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (mail-lf1-f54.google.com. [209.85.167.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w22sm9027166ljm.58.2020.03.13.17.32.48 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id j17so9303422lfe.7 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:32:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:10cf:: with SMTP id k15mr10337015lfg.142.1584145968339; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:32:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200313235303.GP23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200313235357.2646756-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200313235357.2646756-15-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20200313235357.2646756-15-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:32:32 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 15/69] new step_into() flag: WALK_NOFOLLOW To: Al Viro Cc: linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I mentioned this last time (perhaps for a different sequence): On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Al Viro wrote: > > if (likely(!d_is_symlink(path->dentry)) || > - !(flags & WALK_FOLLOW || nd->flags & LOOKUP_FOLLOW)) { > + !(flags & WALK_FOLLOW || nd->flags & LOOKUP_FOLLOW) || > + flags & WALK_NOFOLLOW) { Yes, I know that bitwise operations have higher precedence than the logical ones. And I know & (and &&) have higher precedence than | (and ||). But I have to _think_ about it every time I see code like this. I'd really prefer to see if ((a & BIT) || (b & ANOTHER_BIT)) over the "equivalent" and shorter if (a & BIT || b & ANOTHER_BIT) Please make it explicit. It wasn't before either, but it _could_ be. Linus