On Sat, 3 February 2007 14:25:37 -0800, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > While we store the (dentry, nameidata) in struct file as a struct path, we do > not do so in struct nameidata at the moment. Here is a patch that changes > that. The changes are syntactic only; gcc should generate identical code. > > So what is this good for? > > Well, we currently pass around (dentry, vfsmount) pairs in a number of > places. > With this change, these pairs of objects are embedded in a struct path for > all file lookup oprations or open files. We could start passing around struct > paths instead of (dentry, vfsmount) pairs, without having to construct > temporary struct path objects. This could lead to nice code cleanups. The > struct paths could be passed by value or by reference. > > Opinions?
On its own, I don't like this patch too much. It is just a form of mental masturbation that complicates the source. > - inode = nd.dentry->d_inode; > + inode = nd.path.dentry->d_inode; However, once we start passing struct path by reference, it should result in a smaller binary. So if this patch is followed by others, as you indicated, and the overall result is a measurably smaller binary, I'm all for it. Jörn -- Joern's library part 1: http://lwn.net/Articles/2.6-kernel-api/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
