From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f193.google.com ([209.85.223.193]:39997 "EHLO mail-io0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732292AbeGKCrM (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:47:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180711021136.GN30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20180711022206.12571-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20180711022206.12571-16-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20180711022206.12571-16-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:44:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 16/42] now we can fold open_check_o_direct() into do_dentry_open() To: Al Viro Cc: linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Miklos Szeredi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I like the patch, I hate the commit message. It makes sense right now in this sequence, but I'd really like the commit message to say _why_ this sequence led up to this point. Right now I still remember you trying this, and having to revert it because it didn't work before all the fput/put_filp issues. But a year from now? Five years from now? So at least a "now that fput() works regardless of how far the open got.." kind of explanation, ok? Linus