>>>> Al, Bruce, Aneesh, >>>> >>>> What if we calculate the handle at the time we do have struct path at >>>> hands (i.e. >>>> when we create the inotify) and store it on the inotify structure purely >>>> to be >>>> shown later in proc. Would that be acceptable? >>> >>> Was it the lack of a dentry that was really the problem? I thought it >>> was just the fact that not all filesystems support filehandles. >> >> Initial problem -- we don't know what is being watched by an inotify fd. >> >> Having a dentry somewhere was the 1st attempt to solve this -- keep a path >> in inotify and show it when required. It doesn't work since holding a ref on >> path changes the behavior of watched inode (we cannot rename/unlink/remount >> it the same way as we could before patching the kernel). > > OK. So if you don't mind the fact that there are filesystems with > inotify support but not filehandle support, then I think generating a > filehandle early as you describe would work. I guess it's a little more > memory per watched inode.
Great! Thanks, Bruce, we'll rework the patch accordingly :) > --b. > . > Thanks, Pavel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
