Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 2 Sep 2001 10:16:41 -0600 | | From | Richard Gooch <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC] lazy allocation of struct block_device |
| |
Alexander Viro writes: > > > On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Richard Gooch wrote: > > > Yep. Having to allocate/search for a device structure during open(2) > > is insane. It's wasteful. For ext2fs you can do it in lookup(), and > > for devfs (or similar) you can do the ideal thing: when the device > > entry is registered with the FS (i.e. only once). > > No. We _must_ do it on ->open() for cases when it had been NULL. Driver > might be not there at ->lookup() time and hunting down all inodes with > give major/minor is insanity.
Apologies. Let me clarify what I meant: it's insane to only ever allow allocate/search during open(2).
Oh, and yeah: doing allocate/search during lookup() for ext2fs is a bad idea. Wasn't thinking straight.
> Now, if inode had been created by the driver - sure, we create the > association between it and <whatever>_device from the very > beginning.
Yep. That's what I meant.
> We must support device nodes on normal filesystems.
Of course. No argument.
> Support for such beasts is there to stay. However, we shouldn't do > things that make allocation of new majors mandatory. IOW, as far as > I'm concerned solutions that do not allow "establish connection with > foo_device upon inode creation and don't bother with device number > for that one" are broken.
Nod.
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - 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/
|  |