Re: [PATCH 04/79] ext4: split inode_operations for encrypted symlinks off the rest

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>         } else if (S_ISLNK(inode->i_mode)) {
> -               if (ext4_inode_is_fast_symlink(inode) &&
> -                   !ext4_encrypted_inode(inode)) {
> +               if (ext4_encrypted_inode(inode)) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION
> +                       inode->i_op = &ext4_encrypted_symlink_inode_operations;
> +                       ext4_set_aops(inode);
> +#else
> +                       BUILD_BUG();
> +#endif
> +               } else if (ext4_inode_is_fast_symlink(inode)) {
>                         inode->i_op = &ext4_fast_symlink_inode_operations;
>                         nd_terminate_link(ei->i_data, inode->i_size,
>                                 sizeof(ei->i_data) - 1);

Ugh. Could we aim to *not* add code like this.

Instead, just declare (but don't define) the
ext4_encrypted_symlink_inode_operations thing, so that *if* somebody
uses it they get a link error, and make sure that
"ext4_encrypted_inode()" ends up always returning zero when encryption
isn't enabled, so that the compiler will actually optimize the whole
thing out (which apparently is already the case, judging by the
build-bug-on.

I really prefer to not see #ifdef's inside the middle of anything but
trivial helper functions. I know we have them, and I wish we didn't,
but at least we can aim to not add more of them.

                         Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/