On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:44:02PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> 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.
I think this still qualifies as calling generic_delete_inode because it's
a trivial wrapper. Manipulating i_nlink seems rather odd to me, I'd
say you should rather call into generic_delete_inode directly if
OCFS2_INODE_MAYBE_ORPHANED is set (that's what generic_drop_inode will
do for i_nlink == 0 anyway).
In fact given every cluster and possibly many network filesystems will
need this it might make sense to take the OCFS2_INODE_MAYBE_ORPHANED into
the VFS, i.e. make it an i_state flag (after fixing can_unuse to not do
something totally stupid with i_state)
-
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]
