Hi,
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 21:43 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> Gfs2 has no issues with lingering references to unlinked directory
> inodes.
>
> CC: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/gfs2/ops_inode.c | 5 -----
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/ops_inode.c b/fs/gfs2/ops_inode.c
> index 4bf862c..09e436a 100644
> --- a/fs/gfs2/ops_inode.c
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/ops_inode.c
> @@ -572,8 +572,6 @@ static int gfs2_rmdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
> struct gfs2_holder ri_gh;
> int error;
>
> - dentry_unhash(dentry);
> -
> error = gfs2_rindex_hold(sdp, &ri_gh);
> if (error)
> return error;
> @@ -743,9 +741,6 @@ static int gfs2_rename(struct inode *odir, struct dentry *odentry,
> int error;
>
> if (ndentry->d_inode) {
> - if (S_ISDIR(ndentry->d_inode->i_mode))
> - dentry_unhash(ndentry);
> -
> nip = GFS2_I(ndentry->d_inode);
> if (ip == nip)
> return 0;
I recently posted some patches to this area of code, and I was intending
to push them into my GFS2 -nmw tree today, so I wonder if you could
simplify this by not adding the dentry_unhash into gfs2 in the first
place, which would then ensure no conflicts between the two patch sets?
Steve.
--
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
