On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:39:31PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 01:34:59AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > Unfortunately, not quite as easy as I expected. The information still > > > seems redundant but it seems we'll need to change > > > proc_inode->get_link() to take dentry instead of inode before doing > > > away with proc_inode->fd, but, at any rate, I don't think this is a > > > big deal one way or the other. > > > > Hohum... picking up an additional reference to dentry might be dangerous > > I think. How exactly you imagine we would do that? (without this problem > > I guess we indeed may drop or rather not change proc-inode). > > Why would you need an extra reference? All these data structures are > created dynamically on access and dentry is always available while any > operation on the inode is in progress so it's guaranteed to be > available and there's no reason to diddle with reference count. > Anyways, we can deal with this optimization later, I think. > Hi Tejun, yeah, I somehow missed that you propose to lift up proc_get_link a bit. Letme try such approach indeed. Thanks! Cyrill _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
