![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On January 7, 2002 04:19 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > - You are dreferencing a pointer, and have two allocations for every > > inode instead of one. > > Oh no, you only have one allocator, and you have the filesystem do it, with > per-sb methods. Why is this better than having the VFS do it? Does this > imply you might have different sized inodes with different mounts of the same > filesystem? Because exposing sizes of private objects is Wrong. Now, the problems I see with Jeff's variant: a) if you make struct inode a part of ext2_inode - WTF bother with pointer? b) ->destroy_inode() / ->clear_inode(). Merge them - that way it's one method. c) get_empty_inode() must die. Make it new_inode() and be done with that. And have socket.c explicitly set ->i_dev to NODEV afterwards. d) ext2/balloc.c cleanup probably should be merged before. I can live with "maintain refcounts in common part and leave allocation/freeing to filesystem". It's definitely better than allocating/freeing opaque objects in VFS using numeric fields in fs_type. We will need to set very strict rules on passing around/storing pointers to ext2_inode and its ilk, though. There will be bugs when somebody just decides that keeping such pointers might be a good idea and forgets to be nice with ->i_count. Or decrement it manually instead of calling iput(), etc. It _MUST_ be explicitly documented - preferably beaten into skulls. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||