[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4741A592.3080908@yandex.ru>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:02:42 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: is the inode an orphan?
Hi,
Jan Kara wrote:
>> In our FS when we're in ->unlink() and i_nlink becomes 0, we have to record
>> this inode in the table of orphans, and remove it from there in
>> ->delete_inode(). This is needed to be able to dispose of orphans in case
>> of an unclean reboot on the next mount. AFAIK, ext3 has something similar.
>> I just figured that this could be optimized - in most cases
>> ->delete_inode() is called right after ->unlink(), and I wanted to avoid
>> putting the inode to the orphan table in those cases.
> Yes, ext3 has something similar. But actually ext3 would have to insert
> inode in the orphan list anyway - in delete_inode we do truncate and
> for it we also insert the inode into the orphan list because truncate
> can be too large to fit into a single transaction.
Ok, thanks for this point.
> Hmm, I'm just not sure whether unlink cannot somehow race with open
> (at least I don't see any lock that would prevent open while unlink is
> in progress)...
And this.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists