[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287220153.2799.101.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:09:13 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode
Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 à 19:14 +1100, Dave Chinner a écrit :
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>
> Instead of always assigning an increasing inode number in new_inode
> move the call to assign it into those callers that actually need it.
> For now callers that need it is estimated conservatively, that is
> the call is added to all filesystems that do not assign an i_ino
> by themselves. For a few more filesystems we can avoid assigning
> any inode number given that they aren't user visible, and for others
> it could be done lazily when an inode number is actually needed,
> but that's left for later patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say :
"I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because
I'll take care of this myself later"
would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead
of a single patch.
--
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