Re: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface

From: Linus Torvalds (
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 17:42:59 EST

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Linus, Al, is there an easier way to do this? I stole this from sockfs,
> but I balked at another 50 lines for a proper inode creation, so I just use
> the same dentry and inode over and over.

There's nothing inherently wrong with re-using the inode and dentry -
that's what /dev/futex would do too, of course.

> It's still an awful lot of irrelevant code: what can I cut?

I don't think it's a matter of cutting, as much as possibly a matter of
tryign to share some common code. pipefs, sockfs and now this: they all do
pretty much exactly the same thing, and there is nothing that says that
they should have separate super_operations, for example, since they are
all identical.

And once you have the same super_operations, you really have the same
"fill_super" functions too. The only thing that separates these
superblocks is the root name, so that /proc gets nice output. So it should
be fine to just have

        sb = create_anon_fs("futex");

and share all of the setup code across futex/pipes/sockfs.

Which still leaves you with the

        filp->f_dentry = dget(sb->s_root);
        .. fill it ..
        fd_install(fd, filp);

but by then we're talking single lines of overhead.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:13 EST