On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think you are underestimating the frequency of .. traversals. Any build
> process that creates relative symlinks will be hitting it all the time,
> for one thing.
I suspect you're over-estimating how expensive it is to just walk down
to the mount-point. It's just a few pointer traversals.
Realistically, we probably do more than that for a *regular* path
component lookup, when we follow the hash chains. Following a d_parent
chain for ".." isn't that different.
Just looking at the last patch Eric sent, that one looks _trivial_. It
didn't need *any* preparation or new rules. Compared to the mess with
marking things MNT_DIR_ESCAPED etc, I know which approach I'd prefer.
But hey, if you think you can simplify it... I just don't think that
even totally ignoring the d_splice_alias() things, and totally
ignoring any locking around __d_move(), the whole "mark things
MNT_DIR_ESCAPED" is a lot more complex.
Linus
--
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
