On 5/15/07, Bharata B Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:16:57PM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:14 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > From: Bharata B Rao <[email protected]>
> >
> > +static int ext3_whiteout(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
> > +{
> > + struct inode * inode;
> > + int err, retries = 0;
> > + handle_t *handle;
> > +
> > +retry:
> > + handle = ext3_journal_start(dir, EXT3_DATA_TRANS_BLOCKS(dir->i_sb) +
> > + EXT3_INDEX_EXTRA_TRANS_BLOCKS + 3 +
> > + 2*EXT3_QUOTA_INIT_BLOCKS(dir->i_sb));
> > + if (IS_ERR(handle))
> > + return PTR_ERR(handle);
> > +
> > + if (IS_DIRSYNC(dir))
> > + handle->h_sync = 1;
> > +
> > + inode = ext3_new_inode (handle, dir, S_IFWHT | S_IRUGO);
> > + err = PTR_ERR(inode);
> > + if (IS_ERR(inode))
> > + goto out_stop;
>
> Don't you need to call init_special_inode() here ?
> Or this is handled somewhere else ?
Whiteout doesn't have any attributes and hence we are not explicitly
doing init_special_inode() on this. Accesses to whiteout files are trapped
at the VFS lookup itself and creation and deletion of whiteouts are handled
automatically by VFS. So I believe init_special_inode() isn't necessary
on a whiteout file.
I added default whiteout file operations. So calling
init_special_inode() seems to make sense.
I know the ext2/ext3 whiteout patches are not really where they should
be. I plan to use a reserved inode number to reflect the case that the
inode itself doesn't have any attributes itself. It makes sense to
have a singleton whiteout inode per superblock.
-
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]
