Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 May 2002 16:52:48 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iget_locked [1/6] |
| |
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Jan Harkes wrote:
> > > + if (err) { > > > + destroy_inode(inode); > > > + return NULL; > > > + } > > > > Please, take that code out of the path - will be cleaner that way. > > Ok, a later patch already makes 'set' required, and I was only using the > failure path in Coda. I'll change this so that set never fails.
I'm not sure that it's a good assumption - just add if (err) goto set_failed; and take the cleanup there.
> > > destroy_inode: reiserfs_destroy_inode, > > > read_inode: reiserfs_read_inode, > > > - read_inode2: reiserfs_read_inode2, > > > > Why do we keep ->read_inode() here? > > Just in case someone outside of reiser calls 'iget' on a reiserfs inode. > I guess it's not really necessary to have it around.
Umm... Wait a second. If reiserfs ->read_inode() would work, they wouldn't need ->read_inode2() in the first place. So any external caller of iget() is going to have problems anyway, isn't it? > > > Here we simply add an argument to insert_inode_hash. If at some > > > point a FS specific getattr method is implemented it will be possible to > > > completely remove all uses of i_ino in the VFS. > > > > How about > > > > static inline void insert_inode_hash(struct inode *inode) > > { > > __insert_inode_hash(inode, inode->i_hash); > > Ok, will do that. > > Should I create one patch that goes in relative to iget_locked-6, or > resubmit updated patches for each step? I guess an additional patch is > the easiest. Or a -6a that replaces the existing -6.
-6a - incremental to -6 would mostly revert the stuff done in -6.
- 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/
| |