On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:00:41PM -0600, Rob Ross wrote:
> I don't think that I understand what you're saying here. The openg()
> call does not perform file open (not that that is necessarily even a
> first-class FS operation), it simply does the lookup.
>
> When we were naming these calls, from a POSIX consistency perspective it
> seemed best to keep the "open" nomenclature. That seems to be confusing
> to some. Perhaps we should rename the function "lookup" or something
> similar, to help keep from giving the wrong idea?
>
> There is a difference between the openg() and path_to_handle() approach
> in that we do permission checking at openg(), and that does have
> implications on how the handle might be stored and such. That's being
> discussed in a separate thread.
I was just thinking about how one might implement this, when it struck
me ... how much more efficient is a kernel implementation compared to:
int openg(const char *path)
{
char *s;
do {
s = tempnam(FSROOT, ".sutoc");
link(path, s);
} while (errno == EEXIST);
mpi_broadcast(s);
sleep(10);
unlink(s);
}
and sutoc() becomes simply open(). Now you have a name that's quick to
open (if a client has the filesystem mounted, it has a handle for the
root already), has a defined lifespan, has minimal permission checking,
and doesn't require standardisation.
I suppose some cluster fs' might not support cross-directory links
(AFS is one, I think), but then, no cluster fs's support openg/sutoc.
If a filesystem's willing to add support for these handles, it shouldn't
be too hard for them to treat files starting ".sutoc" specially, and as
efficiently as adding the openg/sutoc concept.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
