On Tue, 10 May 2011, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> 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?
Sure, no problem!
sage
--
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
