[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150126214658.GQ29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:46:58 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16 v3] tracing: Add new file system tracefs
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 03:42:59PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:30:49 +0000
> Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > You are still fighting an inconvenient API, but now it's not debugfs one -
> > it's your copy thereof. Why not give your instances/ an inode_operations
> > of its own? One with ->mkdir() and ->rmdir(), leaving all other directories
> > as-is. That way you don't need the secondary methods at all. And sure,
> > debugfs_create_dir() grabs ->i_mutex on parent, making you drop that in
> > your ->mkdir() if you want to call it. But now you are not talking to it -
> > just to your own code, where you are free to change the calling conventions,
> > making it caller's responsibility to get that ->i_mutex. The same goes for
> > the rmdir side...
>
> The vfs layer grabs the i_mutex, which needs to be dropped.
What for? Just keep it through your instance_mkdir/instance_rmdir and be
done with that. Sure, it means that you need variants of file/directory
creation/removal primitives that would assume that parent is already locked
by caller (and would leave unlocking to the caller as well). So add them...
--
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