Re: [PATCH v3 04/16] fsnotify: pass flags argument to fsnotify_add_mark() via mark

[Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:35 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Wed 13-04-22 12:09:23, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Instead of passing the allow_dups argument to fsnotify_add_mark()
> > as an argument, define the mark flag FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_ALLOW_DUPS
> > to express the old allow_dups meaning and pass this information on the
> > mark itself.
> >
> > We use mark->flags to pass inotify control flags and will pass more
> > control flags in the future so let's make this the standard.
> >
> > Although the FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_ALLOW_DUPS flag is not used after the
> > call to fsnotify_add_mark(), it does not hurt to leave this information
> > on the mark for future use.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
>
> I wanted to comment on this already last time but forgot:
> FSNOTIFY_MARK_FLAG_ALLOW_DUPS is IMO more a property of fsnotify_group
> than a particular mark (or a particular call to fsnotify_add_mark()). As
> such it would make more sense to me to have is as "feature" similarly to
> fs-reclaim restrictions you introduce later in the series.

That's a good idea. I'll do that.

>
> As a bonus, no need for 'flags' argument to
> fsnotify_add_inode_mark_locked() or fsnotify_add_inode_mark().

I prefer to avoid collecting this bonus and leave a flags argument
for future use.

The reason is that I intend to try and convince you to take the patch
for FSNOTIFY_ADD_MARK_UPDATE_MASKS in a future patch set,
so for the chance that I am able to convince you, let's avoid the churn
for now. We can always cleanup the unneeded flags argument later.

Thanks,
Amir.