On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > > I'm OK with everything that avoid code duplication due to those fake > > inodes. The change can be localized inside the existing API, so it doesn't > > really affect me externally. > > Can you try with the first patch version that doesn't do anything special > at all, and just uses a single dentry. > > Yeah, the dentry name will be identical, and so you would see something > like "7 -> signalfd:signalfd" when you do "ls -l /proc/<pid>/fd/" on a > task that has such a special file descriptor (with no way to tell > different timerfd's and signalfd's apart), but I think it's better to > start off simple than to overdesign things. > > And trying to tell them apart sounds a bit like overdesign, if only > because I really don't see why anybody would really *care*. So it's a > timer for poll/select/epoll - why care about anything else?
The code would not change/shrink much with the single dentry. We'd save memory, and we'd lose the capability of seeing aino:[CLASS]. Both ways are fine with me. - Davide - 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/
