On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 16:51 +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> Frankly, I don't like the idea of put'ing pipe data on dentry unlink. IOW, I
> don't like that this data will be controlled somehow in PipeFS.
> I'll send my version soon.
>
I don't understand that objection. The lifetime of that data needs to be
bounded by the lifetime of the pipe itself, which means that it _has_ to
be controlled by the pipefs.
BTW: it isn't being put on dentry unlink. It is being put on dentry
_destruction_. Those are two different events (which is why we have a
problem today).
Cheers
Trond
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
