On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:57:21PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > My approach in my tree is a new function like Al suggests, which > simply doesn't assign the ino. That keeps compatibility backward. There's really no point. The concept of creating a new inode has absolutely nothing to do with i_ino. We'll just need i_ino before adding an inode to the hash. The only reason it's been done by new_inode is historic coincidence - cleaning this mess up is a good thing independent of making the fake inode number generation scale better. As you can see in my patch moving it out there's actually only very few filesystems that need it. -- 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
