Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:57:05 -0600 | | From | Michael Thompson <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/12: eCryptfs] Superblock operations |
| |
On 11/19/05, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > On 11/19/05, Phillip Hellewell <phillip@hellewell.homeip.net> wrote: > > +/** > > + * This is called through iput_final(). > > + * This is function will replace generic_drop_inode. The end result of which > > + * is we are skipping the check in inode->i_nlink, which we do not use. > > + */ > > +static void ecryptfs_drop_inode(struct inode *inode) { > > + generic_delete_inode(inode); > > +} > > Please drop this useless wrapper and introduce it when it actually > does something.
It does do something. By providing this function, we over-ride the default flow of execution.
If we did not provide this function, the flow would be the following:
iput_final -> generic_drop_inode -> generic_delete_inode (or generic_forget_inode).
However, since we do not care about the i_nlink value, which generic_drop_inode checks in order to call generic_delete_inode, we simply circumvent the check by redirecting the flow thusly:
iput_final -> ecryptfs_drop_inode -> generic_delete_inode
I don't see a problem with doing that, but perhaps there is? Please elaborate if so.
> > Pekka > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
-- Michael C. Thompson <mcthomps@us.ibm.com> Software-Engineer, IBM LTC Security - 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/
|  |