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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 1A076C49EA6 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:11:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F203D613B1 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:11:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232317AbhFXLNn (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 07:13:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55300 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232229AbhFXLNm (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 07:13:42 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7C4EC061574; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 04:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id j184so13402747qkd.6; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 04:11:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NHgUP1sTls3prDIr0/e0XqOGAn4B+WBgNNZWu77Qh8U=; b=r9ai+dwmKnq4WxxfIuCyZkrd9DKb0t+YkjBsqJXJyqsYlWwXF8QYyp0DkMggEXoGs9 CJGFlZ8blIuYOPDrKi0BKUt52MBp5rmEsBnsVtfCu+DyITRlAg0wnEHrW0znZLhkkXcA yniO5dsADYB41w7fpy0g+8TEWIdtpeMcpFweVlqb7lttMJ6CtaRm4eBAscpqsVZ41Qq4 D2YSvnEwjuQy8gGdjuCr9UMY/e692ORvjbuJ34NHtHEineTnC3lTtKwcrxwiXEiyccI4 tUt73B8931u2BejGgclKbkwEtH9okVZxrNYjT00OrkpPHl0EC3mtAXjJVdVPRBQ/4MRo FxOQ== 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=NHgUP1sTls3prDIr0/e0XqOGAn4B+WBgNNZWu77Qh8U=; b=nnyBudp4A45FjAvdtOla3OJAytKDiCgVjjDIm7AnktKAh5xxZfuH6J9IKeTL30r8T4 b6iVJijFciBC31iyIrJzb52xueVaFgB8vQNxTAaiC9Q8+FXliyCm+EiHL/HaJ5jv8uOV PB0yIJ9TjVhEdAKhPDugUKolWzt/UtS9Ys34gHiD29heA3QE0CgB3TA+aH2HwEkDAFg8 RhPC43vbbinuEreqenVlOfGhwn5WD2lkGLMk2Lz1sLFKU8UfKItz+PZs/Ad6FKfpa9E9 SlVgP2leWO1jqXepDxK9p2C66FpeSeVwjjPjiLYdxfFzFCIP+aJSwS/gcCZ2nTIPDtiM lREw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531eQWJbUvcA/srlqCoz7W8PE8friyYclYFP4Xv04/iBc3saZ0sd W6+wBmn7TF/68OI7mA5d2iQ4NFeRtnJQuDn2OXA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzud+CQ2ddjQ1BAyj99wpUdFo7MfJsqwf4l3+j0tyt70z83UvhwFlfw8bai2z9rtBwPeFpp+oDhKURJNyLQhCA= X-Received: by 2002:a25:6c0a:: with SMTP id h10mr4057900ybc.167.1624533082745; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 04:11:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210603051836.2614535-1-dkadashev@gmail.com> <20210603051836.2614535-3-dkadashev@gmail.com> <4c0344d8-6725-84a6-b0a8-271587d7e604@gmail.com> <15a9d84b-61df-e2af-0c79-75b54d4bae8f@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <15a9d84b-61df-e2af-0c79-75b54d4bae8f@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Kadashev Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:11:11 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] io_uring: add support for IORING_OP_MKDIRAT To: Pavel Begunkov Cc: Jens Axboe , Alexander Viro , Christian Brauner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, io-uring Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:54 PM Pavel Begunkov wrote: > > On 6/23/21 7:41 AM, Dmitry Kadashev wrote: > > I'd imagine READ_ONCE is to be used in those checks though, isn't it? Some of > > the existing checks like this lack it too btw. I suppose I can fix those in a > > separate commit if that makes sense. > > When we really use a field there should be a READ_ONCE(), > but I wouldn't care about those we check for compatibility > reasons, but that's only my opinion. I'm not sure how the compatibility check reads are special. The code is either correct or not. If a compatibility check has correctness problems then it's pretty much as bad as any other part of the code having such problems, no? That said, I'll just go ahead and use the approach that the rest of the code (or rather most of it) uses (no READ_ONCE). If it needs fixing then the whole bunch can probably be fixed in one go (either a single patch or a series). Thanks for your help, Pavel! -- Dmitry Kadashev