Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h | Date | Thu, 3 Jan 2002 17:20:12 +0100 |
| |
On January 3, 2002 04:45 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > In article <E16M7Gz-00015E-00@starship.berlin> you wrote: > > - inode = get_empty_inode(); > > + inode = get_empty_inode(sb); > > How about killing get_empty_inode completly and using new_inode() instead? > There should be no regularly allocated inode without a superblock.
There are: sock_alloc rd_load_image. However that's a nit because the new, improved get_empty_inode understands the concept of null sb. (Another thing we could do is require every inode to have a superblock - that's probably where it will go in time.)
We put this inside get_empty_inode:
if (inode) { inode->i_dev = sb->s_dev; inode->i_blkbits = sb->s_blocksize_bits; }
then rename it new_inode. But this is outside of the scope of the fs.h work I'm doing, don't you think? There are a lot of things I'd like to clean up on the way through this, but it's probably best to just resist the temptation for now.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |