Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h | Date | Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:25:44 +0100 |
| |
On January 3, 2002 05:20 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote: > 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) { ^^^^^-----> whoops, getting tired, I meant (sb) > 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/
| |