Tejun Heo wrote:
quoted text
> Hello, Eric.
> 
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> It's a bit scary tho.  Working inode->i_dentry or dentry->d_alias
>>> crosses multiple sb's.  sysfs isn't too greedy about dcache/icache.
>>> Only open files and directories hold them and only single copy of
>>> sysfs_dirent is there for most nodes.  Wouldn't it be better to stay on
>>> the safer side and use separate inode hierarchy?
>> To do that I believe we would need to ensure sysfs does not use 
>> the inode->i_mutex lock except to keep the VFS layer out.  Allowing us
>> to safely change the directory structure, without holding it.
> 
> I don't think sysfs is depending on i_mutex anymore but I need to go
> through the code to make sure.
> 
>> You raise a good point about inode->i_dentry and dentry->d_alias.
>> Generally they are used by fat like filesystems but I am starting to
>> see uses in generic pieces of code.  I don't see any problems today
>> but yes it would be good to do the refactoring to allow us to duplicate
>> the inodes. 
> 
> Yeah, I can't spot any place which can cause actual problem yet but it's
> still scary as we're breaking a vfs assumption and even if it's not a
> problem now, future seemingly unrelated changes can break things subtly.

Okay, one small problem spotted.  It seems invalidate_inodes() can fail
which will make generic_shutdown_super() complain.  It's not a fatal
failure tho.

-- 
tejun
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/