On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 08:26:51PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> drop_inode is not going to die, we need it to support filesystems that
> want to call generic_delete_inode even for a non-null i_nlink. What's
> hopefully going to die is the last instance of it that isn't either
> generic_drop_inode or generic_delete_inode.
OCFS2 uses drop_inode as well, as it must handle last-close when
another node did the unlink. It fixes up i_nlink in that case, then
calls generic_drop_inode().
If there's a more elegant solution, we're all ears.
Joel
--
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one
I've never tried before."
- Mae West
Joel Becker
Senior Member of Technical Staff
Oracle
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (650) 506-8127
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
