On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:09:05PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > On 08/21/2012 02:54 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:49:47PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >>>> > >>>> However, if you have some better ideas on what information about inode should be exported > >>>> to the userspace please share. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Why not use name_to_handle(fd,...) and open_by_handle(handle,..) ? > >> > >> Because we don't have an fd at hands by the time we need to know the handle. > > > > Yeah, this might be not clear from patchset itself but inotify marks carry > > inodes inside kernel thus it's inodes what we can use when we fetch information > > about targets and put it into fdinfo output. > > Al, Bruce, Aneesh, > > What if we calculate the handle at the time we do have struct path at hands (i.e. > when we create the inotify) and store it on the inotify structure purely to be > shown later in proc. Would that be acceptable? Was it the lack of a dentry that was really the problem? I thought it was just the fact that not all filesystems support filehandles. --b. -- 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
