On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 05:28:14PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> struct sysfs_dirent {
> atomic_t s_count;
> atomic_t s_active;
> struct sysfs_dirent *s_parent;
> struct sysfs_dirent *s_sibling;
> const char *s_name;
>
> union {
> struct sysfs_elem_dir s_dir;
> struct sysfs_elem_symlink s_symlink;
> struct sysfs_elem_attr s_attr;
> struct sysfs_elem_bin_attr s_bin_attr;
> };
>
> unsigned int s_flags;
> ino_t s_ino;
> umode_t s_mode;
> struct sysfs_inode_attrs *s_iattr;
> ^^
Oh, ouch. That does change the calculus somewhat.
> It feels a bit too convoluted to me. sysfs is already pretty
> convoluted and adding yet more convolution would require pretty good
> justification, so I'm curious about the numbers.
It is convoluted. The advantage of this is that we get to create many
fewer dirents. I wonder if we can do away with the dirents entirely, and
have dentries constructed dynamically instead.
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
