From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755474Ab1HYVfI (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:35:08 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:43768 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753587Ab1HYVfF (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:35:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:34:59 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Tejun Heo Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov , Nathan Lynch , Oren Laadan , Daniel Lezcano , Andrew Morton , Pavel Emelyanov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley , LINUXFS-ML , containers@lists.osdl.org, Zan Lynx , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC] fs, proc: Introduce the /proc//map_files/ directory v2 Message-ID: <20110825213459.GA1929@sun> References: <20110824085329.GL29452@sun> <20110824111806.GA7191@albatros> <20110825082944.GH10030@sun> <20110825170147.GM2803@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110825170705.GA6387@sun> <20110825205426.GO2803@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110825211213.GP2803@mtj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110825211213.GP2803@mtj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:12:13PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, again. > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:54:26PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Another thing is, I don't really see why we need vm_start, or fd for > > that matter, in proc_inode at all. proc_inode is created on the fly > > only as dentry gets instantiated on demand, which means we always have > > d_name on hand to tell what the file is supposed to point to. In > > fact, the code already uses name_to_int() to extract fd from d_name. > > Hmmm... well yeah, it actually seems that proc_inode->fd is never used > > and we can simply remove it. > > Unfortunately, not quite as easy as I expected. The information still > seems redundant but it seems we'll need to change > proc_inode->get_link() to take dentry instead of inode before doing > away with proc_inode->fd, but, at any rate, I don't think this is a > big deal one way or the other. > Hohum... picking up an additional reference to dentry might be dangerous I think. How exactly you imagine we would do that? (without this problem I guess we indeed may drop or rather not change proc-inode). Cyrill