Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say :
> 
> "I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because
> I'll take care of this myself later"
> 
> would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead
> of a single patch.

What's the point, really?  Assigning i_ino in new_inode always has been
an utterly stupid idea to start with.  I fixed the few filesystem that
need it to do it explicitly.  There's nothing unsafe about it - checking
callers of new_inode for manual i_ino assignment was trivial.

Conditional code like the one you suggested is simply evil - it
complicates things instead of simplifying them.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/