Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 Ã 19:14 +1100, Dave Chinner a Ãcrit : > From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > Instead of always assigning an increasing inode number in new_inode > move the call to assign it into those callers that actually need it. > For now callers that need it is estimated conservatively, that is > the call is added to all filesystems that do not assign an i_ino > by themselves. For a few more filesystems we can avoid assigning > any inode number given that they aren't user visible, and for others > it could be done lazily when an inode number is actually needed, > but that's left for later patches. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say : "I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because I'll take care of this myself later" would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead of a single patch. -- 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
