[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200403091124.zxo7cckcvygzwvgl@ws.net.home>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 11:11:24 +0200
From: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, dray@...hat.com,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
andres@...razel.de, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: Upcoming: Notifications, FS notifications and fsinfo()
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:25:54PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> fsinfo(2) will never be substantially cheaper than reading and parsing
> /mnt/MNT_ID/info. In fact reading a large part of the mount table
> using fsinfo(2) will be substantially slower than parsing
> /proc/self/mountinfo (this doesn't actually do the parsing but that
> would add a very small amount of overhead):
I think nobody wants to use fsinfo() or mountfs as replacement to whole
/proc/self/mountinfo. It does not make sense. We need per-mountpoint
API, for whole mount table use-cases (like findmnt or lsblk) the
current mountinfo is good enough.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists