![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:44:02PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 08:26:51PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > drop_inode is not going to die, we need it to support filesystems that > > want to call generic_delete_inode even for a non-null i_nlink. What's > > hopefully going to die is the last instance of it that isn't either > > generic_drop_inode or generic_delete_inode. > > OCFS2 uses drop_inode as well, as it must handle last-close when > another node did the unlink. It fixes up i_nlink in that case, then > calls generic_drop_inode(). > If there's a more elegant solution, we're all ears. I think this still qualifies as calling generic_delete_inode because it's a trivial wrapper. Manipulating i_nlink seems rather odd to me, I'd say you should rather call into generic_delete_inode directly if OCFS2_INODE_MAYBE_ORPHANED is set (that's what generic_drop_inode will do for i_nlink == 0 anyway). In fact given every cluster and possibly many network filesystems will need this it might make sense to take the OCFS2_INODE_MAYBE_ORPHANED into the VFS, i.e. make it an i_state flag (after fixing can_unuse to not do something totally stupid with i_state) - 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: 2005-06-27 22:50 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||