On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> So run __iget prior to dropping inode_lock.
This part looks horrible:
+ spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
+ iput(inode);
+ spin_lock(&inode_lock);
Why not just split up the code inside iput(), and then just do
if (atomic_dec(&inode->i_count))
final_iput(inode);
where final_iput() _wants_ the spinlock held already?
That's basically what "iput()" will end up doing, except for that
"put_inode()" thing, which is just a horrible hack anyway.
So get rid of "put_inode()", and replace it with a new one that takes the
place of the
if (!inode->i_nlink) {
... delete ..
} else {
.. free ..
}
and makes that one be a "i_op->drop_inode" thing that defaults to the
current "delete if i_nlink is zero, free it if i_nlink is not zero and
nobody uses it".
The general VFS layer really shouldn't have assigned that strogn a meaning
to "i_nlink" anyway, it's not for the VFS layer to decide (and it only
causes problems for any non-UNIX-on-a-disk filesystems).
Linus
-
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 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:10 EST