[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1304771525.2821.1173.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 14:32:05 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: add FD_CLOFORK and O_CLOFORK
Le samedi 07 mai 2011 à 13:41 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 08:29, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > I am sure the following idea already was discussed in the past :
> >
> > Embed the close_on_exec / close_on_close bits in the low order bits of
> > file pointers.
>
> How many low order bits do you expect to have in file pointers?
> Are files allocated using kmalloc(), or do they just obey the alignment of the
> individual members of a file struct? In the latter case, you'll have onlyv1 low
> order bit to play with on m68k.
We should have two bits at a very minimum.
clone_on_exec & clone_on_fork would fit.
filp are allocated with a kmem_cachep with cache line alignement.
filp_cachep = kmem_cache_create("filp", sizeof(struct file), 0,
SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN | SLAB_PANIC, NULL);
So in practice we should have more than two bits ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists