Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? To do that I believe we would need to ensure sysfs does not use the inode->i_mutex lock except to keep the VFS layer out. Allowing us to safely change the directory structure, without holding it. You raise a good point about inode->i_dentry and dentry->d_alias. Generally they are used by fat like filesystems but I am starting to see uses in generic pieces of code. I don't see any problems today but yes it would be good to do the refactoring to allow us to duplicate the inodes. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers