[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whAG6TM6PgH0YnsRe6U=RzL+JMvCi=_f0Bhw+q_7SSZuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 14:29:01 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Trace Devel <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfs: Have inodes have unique inode numbers
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 14:14, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>
> I do however have a concern with the approach of using the same
> inode number for various files on the same filesystem: AFAIU it
> breaks userspace ABI expectations.
Virtual filesystems have always done that in various ways.
Look at the whole discussion about the size of the file. Then look at /proc.
And honestly, eventfs needs to be simplified. It's a mess. It's less
of a mess than it used to be, but people should *NOT* think that it's
a real filesystem.
Don't use some POSIX standard as an expectation for things like /proc,
/sys or tracefs.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists