Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:47:58 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h |
| |
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On January 3, 2002 04:45 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > In article <E16M7Gz-00015E-00@starship.berlin> you wrote: > > > - inode = get_empty_inode(); > > > + inode = get_empty_inode(sb); > > > > How about killing get_empty_inode completly and using new_inode() instead? > > There should be no regularly allocated inode without a superblock. > > There are: sock_alloc rd_load_image. However that's a nit because the new, > improved get_empty_inode understands the concept of null sb. (Another thing > we could do is require every inode to have a superblock - that's probably > where it will go in time.)
It's _already_ there. RTFS, please - sock_alloc() creates inodes with sockfs superblock in ->i_sb and rd_load_image() just does normal open() for device nodes on rootfs.
Please, don't reintroduce the crap we'd already killed.
- 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/
| |