On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > 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. What's the point, really? Assigning i_ino in new_inode always has been an utterly stupid idea to start with. I fixed the few filesystem that need it to do it explicitly. There's nothing unsafe about it - checking callers of new_inode for manual i_ino assignment was trivial. Conditional code like the one you suggested is simply evil - it complicates things instead of simplifying them. -- 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
