On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:22:01PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. It is, the point is backwards compatibility and churn. It's like a single function call and a load from cache in the inode creation path -- a drop in the ocean. So it's not worth my time with the churn. > 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. Easy to just have a new name, IMO. But I won't get hung up arguing the point. -- 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
