Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 Ã 12:35 -0400, Christoph Hellwig a Ãcrit : > 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. This is what we call code factorization. I wont call it evil. If we want to change get_next_ino(void) implementation to get_next_ino(struct inode *), or even get_next_inode(struct inode *inode, struct super_block *sb) then we must go through all fs after your patch to add the new parameter. I proposed an implementation on get_next_ino() on 32bit arches, with no per_cpu and shared counter, assuming we know the inode pointer. With your patch, it become very difficult to implement such an idea. -- 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
