lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: - r-o-bind-mount-clean-up-ocfs2-nlink-handling.patch removed from -mm tree
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 11:27 -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
    > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:06:30PM -0700, akpm@osdl.org wrote:
    > > The patch titled
    > >
    > > r/o bind mounts: clean up OCFS2 nlink handling
    > >
    > > has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename is
    > >
    > > r-o-bind-mount-clean-up-ocfs2-nlink-handling.patch
    > >
    > > This patch was dropped because git-ocfs2 changes broke it. New patch, please.
    > Yep, that was very likely due to my dentry vote removal changes.
    >
    > Dave, how's this one look? I guess I'll leave the same description message
    > below...

    I was _just_ fighting with your git tree to see what was conflicting!
    You have impeccable timing.

    > static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *dir,
    > struct dentry *dentry)
    > {
    > int status;
    > - unsigned int saved_nlink = 0;
    > struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
    > struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(dir->i_sb);
    > u64 blkno;
    > @@ -813,6 +825,7 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *di
    > struct buffer_head *dirent_bh = NULL;
    > char orphan_name[OCFS2_ORPHAN_NAMELEN + 1];
    > struct buffer_head *orphan_entry_bh = NULL;
    > + unsigned int future_nlink;
    >
    > mlog_entry("(0x%p, 0x%p, '%.*s')\n", dir, dentry,
    > dentry->d_name.len, dentry->d_name.name);
    > @@ -876,15 +889,10 @@ static int ocfs2_unlink(struct inode *di
    > }
    > }
    >
    > - /* There are still a few steps left until we can consider the
    > - * unlink to have succeeded. Save off nlink here before
    > - * modification so we can set it back in case we hit an issue
    > - * before commit. */
    > - saved_nlink = inode->i_nlink;
    > - if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
    > - inode->i_nlink = 0;
    > + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) && (inode->i_nlink == 2))
    > + future_nlink = 0;
    > else
    > - inode->i_nlink--;
    > + future_nlink = inode->i_nlink - 1;

    Now that the vote call is gone, I don't think we even use future_nlink.
    Can we just kill this entire section?

    -- Dave

    -
    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: 2006-09-13 20:41    [W:0.031 / U:0.180 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site