[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> On January 3, 2002 04:45 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > In article <> you wrote:
> > > - inode = get_empty_inode();
> > > + inode = get_empty_inode(sb);
> >
> > How about killing get_empty_inode completly and using new_inode() instead?
> > There should be no regularly allocated inode without a superblock.
> There are: sock_alloc rd_load_image. However that's a nit because the new,
> improved get_empty_inode understands the concept of null sb. (Another thing
> we could do is require every inode to have a superblock - that's probably
> where it will go in time.)

It's _already_ there. RTFS, please - sock_alloc() creates inodes with
sockfs superblock in ->i_sb and rd_load_image() just does normal open()
for device nodes on rootfs.

Please, don't reintroduce the crap we'd already killed.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.094 / U:2.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site