On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > That would include another stat call on the file to get the st_dev ? As > per the last review (Message-id:20100708082143.3701bfc7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1007385 we discussed that > it would be nice to add st_dev as a part of handle. Later I suggested > it would be nice to get mount_id instead of st_dev because st_dev is > not stable (against remounts) for file system that doesn't have a > backing device. So instead of using something that is partially stable, > add mnt_id which is explicitly stated to be unstable across remounts. > > If you are against having mount_id as a part of struct file_handle, do > you think we could add it as a extra argument to syscall ? Yeah, I think that would be cleaner. Thanks, Miklos -- 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
