Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2002, Paul Larson wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 16:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>>Hmm.. Giving them a quick glance-over, the /proc issues look like they
>>>shouldn't be there in 2.5.x anyway, since the inode number really is
>>>largely just a random number in 2.5 and all the real information is
>>>squirelled away at path open time.
>>
>
> It looks like the biggest impact on /proc would be that the /proc/<pid>
> inodes wouldn't be 10%% unique any more, which in turn means that an
> old-style /bin/pwd that actually walks the tree backwards and checks the
> inode number would occasionally fail.
>
> That in turn makes me suspect that we'd better off just biting the bullet
> and makign the inode numbers almost completely static, and forcing that
> particular failure mode early rather than hit it randomly due to unlucky
> timing.
>
> Doing a simple strace shows that all the systems I have regular access to
> use the "getcwd()" system call anyway, which gets this right on /proc (and
> other filesystems that do not guarantee unique inode numbers)
Anyone care to clarify which filesystems don't
have unique inode numbers. I always thought you
could uniquely identify any file using a device,inode
tuple? Fair enough proc is "special" but can/should
you not assume unique inodes within all other filesystems?
Also why can't you allocate a unique number in /proc?
thanks,
Pádraig.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 22:00:27 EST