lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 4/8] fs, exportfs: Add export_encode_inode_fh helper
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:15:53PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:03:00PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > What's wrong with saying "we don't support idiotify"?
> > >
> > > Al, we need some way to restore inotifies after checkpoint.
> > > At the very early versions of these patches I simply added
> > > dentry to the inotify mark thus once inotify created we always
> > > have a dentry to refer on in encode_fh, but I'm not sure if
> > > this will be good design.
> >
> > Actually, I was about to suggest this. This can be done internally
> > within fs/notify without actually modifying the syscall interface, can't
> > it, since they take a path which is used to obtain the inode? It looks
> > like the whole of the inotify interface could be internally recast to
> > use dentries instead of inodes. Unless I've missed something obvious?
>
> Well, after looking into do_sys_name_to_handle->exportfs_encode_fh
> sequence more precisely it seems it will be easier to extend
> exportfs_encode_fh to support inodes directly instead of playing
> with notify code (again, if i'm not missing something too).
> i'm cooking a patch to show (once it's tested i'll send it out).

Good luck doing that with e.g. VFAT... And then there's such thing
as filesystems that don't have ->encode_fh() for a lot of very good
reasons; just try to do that on sysfs, for example. Or on ramfs,
for that matter... And while saying "you can't export that over
NFS" seems to work fine, idiotify-lovers will screech if you try
to ban their perversion of choice on those filesystems.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-16 17:22    [W:0.177 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site