[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say :
> "I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because
> I'll take care of this myself later"
> would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead
> of a single patch.

What's the point, really? Assigning i_ino in new_inode always has been
an utterly stupid idea to start with. I fixed the few filesystem that
need it to do it explicitly. There's nothing unsafe about it - checking
callers of new_inode for manual i_ino assignment was trivial.

Conditional code like the one you suggested is simply evil - it
complicates things instead of simplifying them.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-16 18:37    [W:0.117 / U:1.336 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site