Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:53:40 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] get_empty_inode() cleanup |
| |
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> on the other hand, even 1 minute's thought reveals that making strict > logical separation between "consumers of inode with sb" and "consumers of > inode without sb" is probably worth the overhead of an extra function > call. So, I don't strongly feel about the above... maybe you are right :)
It's not the with sb/without sb thing. Everything is much simpler - changing the get_empty_inode() prototype means mandatory changes in all 3rd-party code. Code freeze and all such...
IOW, unmodified code doesn't break from the addition of helper function, but changing get_empty_inode() will break (albeit in a trivial way) every bloody filesystem out there. Not a problem for 2.5, but doing that now for no good reason...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |