On 11/21/05, Pekka Enberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/19/05, Pekka Enberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * This is called through iput_final().
> > > > + * This is function will replace generic_drop_inode. The end result of which
> > > > + * is we are skipping the check in inode->i_nlink, which we do not use.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static void ecryptfs_drop_inode(struct inode *inode) {
> > > > + generic_delete_inode(inode);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Please drop this useless wrapper and introduce it when it actually
> > > does something.
>
> On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 09:57 -0600, Michael Thompson wrote:
> > I don't see a problem with doing that, but perhaps there is? Please
> > elaborate if so.
>
> You can set ecryptfs_sops->drop_inode to generic_delete_inode directly,
> no?
Yes, I do believe I could do that and save a function call. My mind is
wobbely today.
>
> Pekka
>
>
--
Michael C. Thompson <[email protected]>
Software-Engineer, IBM LTC Security
-
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]
