Re: is the inode an orphan?

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@yandex.ru>]

Hi,

Jan Kara wrote:
> > In our FS when we're in ->unlink() and i_nlink becomes 0, we have to record 
> > this inode in the table of orphans, and remove it from there in 
> > ->delete_inode(). This is needed to be able to dispose of orphans in case 
> > of an unclean reboot on the next mount. AFAIK, ext3 has something similar. 
> > I just figured that this could be optimized - in most cases 
> > ->delete_inode() is called right after ->unlink(), and I wanted to avoid 
> > putting the inode to the orphan table in those cases.
>   Yes, ext3 has something similar. But actually ext3 would have to insert
> inode in the orphan list anyway - in delete_inode we do truncate and
> for it we also insert the inode into the orphan list because truncate
> can be too large to fit into a single transaction.

Ok, thanks for this point.

>   Hmm, I'm just not sure whether unlink cannot somehow race with open
> (at least I don't see any lock that would prevent open while unlink is
> in progress)...

And this.

--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/