Re: [PATCH 15/18] fs: introduce a per-cpu last_ino allocator

[Nick Piggin]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:22:01PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:57:21PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > My approach in my tree is a new function like Al suggests, which
> > simply doesn't assign the ino. That keeps compatibility backward.
> 
> There's really no point.

It is, the point is backwards compatibility and churn. It's like a
single function call and a load from cache in the inode creation
path -- a drop in the ocean. So it's not worth my time with the
churn.

>  The concept of creating a new inode has
> absolutely nothing to do with i_ino.  We'll just need i_ino before
> adding an inode to the hash.  The only reason it's been done by
> new_inode is historic coincidence - cleaning this mess up is a good
> thing independent of making the fake inode number generation scale
> better.  As you can see in my patch moving it out there's actually
> only very few filesystems that need it.

Easy to just have a new name, IMO. But I won't get hung up arguing
the point.

--
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/