On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:20:12PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On January 3, 2002 04:45 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > In article <E16M7Gz-00015E-00@starship.berlin> 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.
get_empty_inode is hopefully going to die in the current, non-static version.
> (Another thing
> we could do is require every inode to have a superblock - that's probably
> where it will go in time.)
Any inode that gets into the icache already has and superblock.
If any other are left they really should use a different allocator.
> We put this inside get_empty_inode:
>
> if (inode) {
> inode->i_dev = sb->s_dev;
> inode->i_blkbits = sb->s_blocksize_bits;
> }
>
> then rename it new_inode. But this is outside of the scope of the fs.h work
> I'm doing, don't you think?
Rename your current get_empty_inode to __get_empty_inode and mark it
static. Add a new get_empty_inode that calls __get_empty_inode(NULL) or
better let it die.
Christoph
-- Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade. - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:22 EST