On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 09:42:08AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 08:38:22AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > Just curious, why does xfs need this, but the existing file systems > > > don't? That would be some good background information for the commit > > > message. > > > > Hrmmm... the last time I sent this RFC, online fsck used it to check the > > validity of the merkle tree xattrs. > > I saw a few users, so it does get used. But patches exporting something > should in generaly document what the use case is. > > > > > + if (!IS_VERITY(inode)) > > > > + return -ENODATA; > > > > + > > > > + error = ensure_verity_info(inode); > > > > + if (error) > > > > + return error; > > > > + > > > > + vi = inode->i_verity_info; > > > > > > Wouldn't it be a better interface to return the verity_ino from > > > ensure_verity_info (NULL for !IS_VERITY, ERR_PTR for real error) > > > and then just look at the fields directly? > > > > They're private to fsverity_private.h. > > Indeed. Is ensure_verity_info ven the right thing here? I.e. > should quering the paramters create the info if it wasn't there > yet? I think it's usually the case that we're about to access the merkle tree anyway, so the next step in whatever we're doing would load it for us. --D
