From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yb0-f194.google.com ([209.85.213.194]:36239 "EHLO
        mail-yb0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932944AbeFUNkk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:40:40 -0400
Received: by mail-yb0-f194.google.com with SMTP id x128-v6so1229148ybg.3
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180621125816.254kg3zx2tptmvfq@merlin>
References: <20180620193910.6804-1-rgoldwyn@suse.de> <20180620193910.6804-4-rgoldwyn@suse.de>
 <20180621122201.GB14053@infradead.org> <20180621125816.254kg3zx2tptmvfq@merlin>
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:40:38 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxim1+JOynP8tfGcpmFhkAy+XE31gjMZ5dEtr2CEVY-Vpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] VFS: call d_inode() from d_backing_inode()
To: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de> wrote:
> On 06-21 05:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:39:10PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>> > -static inline struct dentry *d_backing_dentry(struct dentry *upper)
>> > +static inline struct inode *d_backing_inode(const struct dentry *dentry)
>> >  {
>> > -   return upper;
>> > +   return d_inode(dentry);
>> >  }
>>
>> Why even keep both functions around then?
>>
>
> Yes, I would love to get rid of them. There are just too many users.
> 1332 users of d_inode
> 176 users of d_backing_inode
>

If you had an idea to get rid of d_inode() please resist the temptation.
s/d_backing_inode/d_inode is no harm.

> Similarly, file_inode() with 1020 users is another candidate.
>

Similarly, please resist the temptation to remove this harmless
wrapper, especially, not before this discussion ends with
an understanding about the required VFS abstractions:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152904165622462&w=2

Thanks,
Amir.