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.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers