[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121114095812.GF16685@moon>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:58:12 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...lan.co.uk>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
Matthew Helsley <matt.helsley@...il.com>,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bfields@...ldses.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] fs, notify: Add file handle entry into
inotify_inode_mark
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:50:55AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > You could not use a pointer and then allocate your buffers on the check
> > > point operation, freeing on restore?
> >
> > The problem is not allocating the memory itself but rather the time when the
> > information needed (ie the dentry) is available. The only moment when we
> > can use dentry of the target file/directory is at inotify_new_watch, that's
> > why i need to compose fhandle that early. At any later point we simply have
> > no dentry to use.
>
> But you do not fundamentally need the dentry to restore a watch, right?
dentry only needed to encode the file handle.
> Couldn't you restore, creating a new restore path if needed, using the inode
> which is pinned anyway while the watch exists?
plain inode is not enough as far as i can tell, iow i don't see the way
to restore path from inode solely. or there something i miss?
Cyrill
--
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