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

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:11:39AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> This is what we call code factorization. I wont call it evil.
> 
> If we want to change get_next_ino(void) implementation to 
> get_next_ino(struct inode *), or even get_next_inode(struct inode
> *inode, struct super_block *sb)
>  then we must go through all fs after your patch to add the new
> parameter.
> 
> I proposed an implementation on get_next_ino() on 32bit arches, with no
> per_cpu and shared counter, assuming we know the inode pointer. With
> your patch, it become very difficult to implement such an idea.

Why?  You now have all call sites that care and can trivially change
them to whatever argument they need.
--
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/