Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:04:58 -0700 | From | "David S. Miller" <> | Subject | Re: inodes are not cleared! |
| |
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:50:35 -0400 From: Bill Hawes <whawes@star.net>
But it's hardly worth arguing about; if you feel that strongly about it, send Linus a patch for get_empty_inode(). One extra cleared field isn't going to hurt performance.
I'm not a maniac about it, in fact look at all the layering violations still left in IP/TCP layers :-) (I did try to remove most of them, but this job was a difficult one to finish)
As you note my suggested approach won't cause any performance problems, and it may save some headaches for some other people, so it seems to make a lot of sense.
(I do note a trend that when a VFS behaviorism changes, true filesystem implementations get updated quite quick, and networking dependencies take almost as long to get fully fleshed out as the UMSDOS port to dentries has taken ;-) This is my fault as much as anyone else's)
Later, David S. Miller davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |