Re: [PATCH v6 00/15] Create and use APIs to centralise locking for directory ops

On Sat, 15 Nov 2025, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 01:24:41PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 11:18:23AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > Following is a new version of this series:
> > >  - fixed a bug found by syzbot
> > >  - cleanup suggested by Stephen Smalley
> > >  - added patch for missing updates in smb/server - thanks Jeff Layton
> > 
> > The codeflow right now is very very gnarly in a lot of places which
> > obviously isn't your fault. But start_creating() and end_creating()
> > would very naturally lend themselves to be CLASS() guards.
> > 
> > Unrelated: I'm very inclined to slap a patch on top that renames
> > start_creating()/end_creating() and start_dirop()/end_dirop() to
> > vfs_start_creating()/vfs_end_creating() and
> > vfs_start_dirop()/vfs_end_dirop(). After all they are VFS level
> > maintained helpers and I try to be consistent with the naming in the
> > codebase making it very easy to grep.
> 
> @Neil, @Jeff, could you please look at:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git/log/?h=vfs.all
> 
> and specifically at the merge conflict resolution I did for:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git/commit/?h=vfs.all&id=f28c9935f78bffe6fee62f7fb9f6c5af7e30d9b2
> 
> and tell me whether it all looks sane?
> 

That merge is a7b062be95fed490d1dcd350d3b5657f243d7d4f today, and I
agree with Jeff that it looks good.

Thanks,
NeilBrown