[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487D8C0A.9060100@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:50:02 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] driver core: Implement tagged directory support
for device classes.
Hello,
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Eric, with the multiple superblocks, sysfs now uses inode from the
>> default sysfs_sb with dentries from other sb's. Is this okay? Are
>> there any other filesystems which do this?
>
> I don't know of any other filesystems where this unique challenge arises.
> /proc almost qualifies but it never needs to be modified.
>
> It is certainly ok to go from multiple dentries to a single inode.
> I'm trying to remember why I choose to do that. I think both because it simplifies
> the locking and keeps us more efficient in the icache.
It's a bit scary tho. Working inode->i_dentry or dentry->d_alias
crosses multiple sb's. sysfs isn't too greedy about dcache/icache.
Only open files and directories hold them and only single copy of
sysfs_dirent is there for most nodes. Wouldn't it be better to stay on
the safer side and use separate inode hierarchy?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists