![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:15:24AM -0700, Joel Becker wrote: > My apologies for not having read the inotify thread, I'll go > look in the morning. > In ->drop_inode(), OCFS2 takes care of noticing that nlink has > been changed by a remote node. This is necessary for > generic_drop...delete operation to proceed. > If OCFS2 had to go back to the 2.4 method of checking i_count==1 > in ->put_inode(), I'm not sure we're allowed to modify i_nlink there > unlocked, are we? > I also think we had some sort of race with inode_lock that > ->drop_inode() avoids, but I'm not sure. Mark? The real fix would be to put an equivalent of OCFS2_INODE_MAYBE_ORPHANED into struct inode. That way it could be shared by other clustered filesystems aswell, and OCFS2 had no need to implement ->drop_inode. I'm pretty sure I dicussed that with either Mark or Zab. - 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: 2005-09-21 11:20 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||