[Devel] Re: [RFC v14-rc][PATCH 09/23] Dump open file descriptors

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Dave Hansen (dave at linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 16:55 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 14:47 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > >> +       switch (inode->i_mode & S_IFMT) {
> > >> +       case S_IFREG:
> > >> +               fd_type = CR_FD_FILE;
> > >> +               break;
> > >> +       case S_IFDIR:
> > >> +               fd_type = CR_FD_DIR;
> > >> +               break;
> > >> +       default:
> > >> +               cr_hbuf_put(ctx, sizeof(*hh));
> > >> +               return -EBADF;
> > >> +       }
> > > 
> > > Why is there differentiation between files and directories?  Since we
> > > deal with them in the same way, why bother adding this code everywhere
> > > to make them distinct?
> > 
> > When we will handle unlinked files and unlinked directories, they will
> > be handled differently.
> 
> This at *LEAST* needs a big fat comment.
> 
> ... and unlinked files will be handled differently than normal files.
> Can we cross that bridge when we come to it?  The abstraction that I
> drew before in my patch was this:
> 
> 	CR_FD_GENERIC
> 
> It means an fd the can be checkpointed/restored in a "generic" way,
> namely "open()/lseek()", done.  Linked directories and linked files
> share this attribute.  Unlinked files/directories do not.
> 
> Is it more important that we classify things based on the file/directory
> properties, or how we handle them?

Did this thread die because we expect Dave's fops patch to make
this absolete?

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers