On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 06:03:46AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > FWIW, that one is begging to be split; what I mean is that there are > > two classes of callers; ones that will set i_ino themselves anyway > > and ones that really want i_ino invented. Two functions? > > There's no reason to add i_ino before adding it to the per-sb list, > we don't do so either for inodes acquired via iget. The fix is simply > to stop assigning i_ino in new_inode and call the helper to get it in > the place that need it after the call to new_inode. Later we can My approach in my tree is a new function like Al suggests, which simply doesn't assign the ino. That keeps compatibility backward. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
