[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Linus, Al, is there an easier way to do this? I stole this from sockfs,
> but I balked at another 50 lines for a proper inode creation, so I just use
> the same dentry and inode over and over.

There's nothing inherently wrong with re-using the inode and dentry -
that's what /dev/futex would do too, of course.

> It's still an awful lot of irrelevant code: what can I cut?

I don't think it's a matter of cutting, as much as possibly a matter of
tryign to share some common code. pipefs, sockfs and now this: they all do
pretty much exactly the same thing, and there is nothing that says that
they should have separate super_operations, for example, since they are
all identical.

And once you have the same super_operations, you really have the same
"fill_super" functions too. The only thing that separates these
superblocks is the root name, so that /proc gets nice output. So it should
be fine to just have

sb = create_anon_fs("futex");

and share all of the setup code across futex/pipes/sockfs.

Which still leaves you with the

filp->f_dentry = dget(sb->s_root);
.. fill it ..
fd_install(fd, filp);

but by then we're talking single lines of overhead.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.147 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site