在 2025/5/22 15:41, Amir Goldstein 写道:
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 3:02 AM Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello!
There are currently two possible approaches to this patch.
The first is to directly change the declaration, which would be
straightforward and involve minimal modifications.
However, per Al Viro's suggestion — that "mnt for vfsmount, m for mount"
is an informal convention. This is in line with what the current
patch does, although I understand Jan Kara might feel that the scope of
the changes is a bit large.
I would appreciate any suggestions or guidance on how to proceed. So
friendly ping...
Hi Zizhi,
I guess you are not familiar with kernel lingo so I will translate:
"...so I'd say go for it if there had been any change in the function
in question. Same as with coding style, really...
It means that your change is correct, but maintainers are
not interested in taking "style only" changes because it
creates undesired git history noise called "churn".
Thank you for your patient explanation! I'm indeed a newcomer to the
Linux kernel. Now I understand what everyone means.
Should anyone be going to make logic changes in
mnt_get_write_access() in the future, the style change
can be applied along in the same patch.
One observation I have is -
If this was the only case that deviates from the standard
the change might have been justified.
From a quick grep, I see that the reality in the code is very far
from this standard.
Yes, I noticed that as well. However, for consistency with the later use
of mnt_put_write_access(), I chose to go with the modification in this
patch...
Thanks,
Zizhi Wo
FWIW, wholeheartedly I agree that the ambiguity of the type of
an 'mnt' arg is annoying, but IMO 'm' is not making that very clear.
To me, 'mount' arg is very clear when it appears in the code
Thanks,
Amir.
