Hi,
On 24/02/2020 15:28, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 3:55 PM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Once it's table driven, certainly a sysfs directory becomes possible.
The problem with ST_DEV is filesystems like btrfs and xfs that may have
multiple devices.
For XFS there's always a single sb->s_dev though, that's what st_dev
will be set to on all files.
Btrfs subvolume is sort of a lightweight superblock, so basically all
such st_dev's are aliases of the same master superblock. So lookup of
all subvolume st_dev's could result in referencing the same underlying
struct super_block (just like /proc/$PID will reference the same
underlying task group regardless of which of the task group member's
PID is used).
Having this info in sysfs would spare us a number of issues that a set
of new syscalls would bring. The question is, would that be enough,
or is there a reason that sysfs can't be used to present the various
filesystem related information that fsinfo is supposed to present?
Thanks,
Miklos
We need a unique id for superblocks anyway. I had wondered about using
s_dev some time back, but for the reasons mentioned earlier in this
thread I think it might just land up being confusing and difficult to
manage. While fake s_devs are created for sbs that don't have a device,
I can't help thinking that something closer to ifindex, but for
superblocks, is needed here. That would avoid the issue of which device
number to use.
In fact we need that anyway for the notifications, since without that
there is a race that can lead to missing remounts of the same device, in
case a umount/mount pair is missed due to an overrun, and then fsinfo
returns the same device as before, with potentially the same mount
options too. So I think a unique id for a superblock is a generically
useful feature, which would also allow for sensible sysfs directory
naming, if required,
Steve.
