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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
