On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 16:55 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 14:47 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >> + switch (inode->i_mode & S_IFMT) {
> >> + case S_IFREG:
> >> + fd_type = CR_FD_FILE;
> >> + break;
> >> + case S_IFDIR:
> >> + fd_type = CR_FD_DIR;
> >> + break;
> >> + default:
> >> + cr_hbuf_put(ctx, sizeof(*hh));
> >> + return -EBADF;
> >> + }
> >
> > Why is there differentiation between files and directories? Since we
> > deal with them in the same way, why bother adding this code everywhere
> > to make them distinct?
>
> When we will handle unlinked files and unlinked directories, they will
> be handled differently.
This at *LEAST* needs a big fat comment.
... and unlinked files will be handled differently than normal files.
Can we cross that bridge when we come to it? The abstraction that I
drew before in my patch was this:
CR_FD_GENERIC
It means an fd the can be checkpointed/restored in a "generic" way,
namely "open()/lseek()", done. Linked directories and linked files
share this attribute. Unlinked files/directories do not.
Is it more important that we classify things based on the file/directory
properties, or how we handle them?
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
