Re: [PATCH 09/11] audit: Allocate fsnotify mark independently of chunk

On Fri 14-09-18 10:09:09, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 2018-09-04 18:06, Jan Kara wrote: > > Allocate fsnotify mark independently instead of embedding it inside > > chunk. This will allow us to just replace chunk attached to mark when > > growing / shrinking chunk instead of replacing mark attached to inode > > which is a more complex operation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.cz&gt; > > --- ... > > +static struct audit_chunk *mark_chunk(struct fsnotify_mark *mark) > > +{ > > + return audit_mark(mark)->chunk; > > +} > > + > > static void audit_tree_destroy_watch(struct fsnotify_mark *entry) > > { > > - struct audit_chunk *chunk = container_of(entry, struct audit_chunk, mark); > > + struct audit_chunk *chunk = mark_chunk(entry); > > audit_mark_put_chunk(chunk); > > + kmem_cache_free(audit_tree_mark_cachep, audit_mark(entry)); > > +} > > + > > +static struct fsnotify_mark *alloc_mark(void) > > +{ > > + struct audit_tree_mark *mark; > > Would it make sense to call this local variable "amark" to indicate it > isn't a struct fsnotify_mark, but in fact an audit helper variant? > > > + > > + mark = kmem_cache_zalloc(audit_tree_mark_cachep, GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!mark) > > + return NULL; > > + fsnotify_init_mark(&mark->mark, audit_tree_group); > > + mark->mark.mask = FS_IN_IGNORED; > > + return &mark->mark; > > There are no other places where it is used in this patch to name a > variable, but this one I found a bit confusing to follow the > "mark->mark" Yeah, makes sense. I can do the change.