On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, David Howells wrote: > NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Also the path component name is passed as "name" and "len" which are > > (confusingly?) separate by the "base". In some cases the len in simply > > "strlen" and so passing a qstr using QSTR() would make the calling > > clearer. > > Other callers do pass separate name and len which are stored in a > > struct. Sometimes these are already stored in a qstr, other times it > > easily could be. > > > > So this patch changes these three functions to receive a 'struct qstr', > > and improves the documentation. > > You did want 'struct qstr' not 'struct qstr *' right? I think there are > arches where this will cause the compiler to skip a register argument or two > if it's the second argument or third argument - i386 for example. Plus you > have an 8-byte alignment requirement because of the u64 in it that may suck if > passed through several layers of function. I don't think it is passed through several layers - except where the intermediate are inlined. And gcc enforces 16 byte alignment of the stack on function calls for i386, so I don't think alignment will be an issue. I thought 'struct qstr' would result in slightly cleaner calling. But I cannot make a strong argument in favour of it so I'm willing to change if there are concerns. Thanks, NeilBrown
