On 08/21/2012 04:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > 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. Initial problem -- we don't know what is being watched by an inotify fd. Having a dentry somewhere was the 1st attempt to solve this -- keep a path in inotify and show it when required. It doesn't work since holding a ref on path changes the behavior of watched inode (we cannot rename/unlink/remount it the same way as we could before patching the kernel). > --b. > . > Thanks, Pavel -- 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
