On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:36:01AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > I have no problems with killing ->drop_inode(), but that should be
> > a) done for in-tree filesystems
> > b) announced on fsdevel, so that out-of-tree folks could deal
> > with that
> > c) given at least one release to avoid screwing them.
>
> sure. Note that clusterfs folks (ocfs2 in particular) really want
> ->drop_inode because they need additional checks instead of just the
> nlink one in there. While hugetlbfs should just go away ->drop_inode
> makes some sense for them.
My apologies for not having read the inotify thread, I'll go
look in the morning.
In ->drop_inode(), OCFS2 takes care of noticing that nlink has
been changed by a remote node. This is necessary for
generic_drop...delete operation to proceed.
If OCFS2 had to go back to the 2.4 method of checking i_count==1
in ->put_inode(), I'm not sure we're allowed to modify i_nlink there
unlocked, are we?
I also think we had some sort of race with inode_lock that
->drop_inode() avoids, but I'm not sure. Mark?
Joel
--
"For every complex problem there exists a solution that is brief,
concise, and totally wrong."
-Unknown
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |