On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:12:13PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, again. > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:54:26PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Another thing is, I don't really see why we need vm_start, or fd for > > that matter, in proc_inode at all. proc_inode is created on the fly > > only as dentry gets instantiated on demand, which means we always have > > d_name on hand to tell what the file is supposed to point to. In > > fact, the code already uses name_to_int() to extract fd from d_name. > > Hmmm... well yeah, it actually seems that proc_inode->fd is never used > > and we can simply remove it. > > 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). Cyrill -- 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
