On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 17:11 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 13:56 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 10:50:44AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > > > > > WRT 'sen_nlink()' - I can use it instead of 'drop_nlink()'/'inc_nlink()' > > > > of course. But I do not really see why is this better. E.g., > > > > 'drop_nlink()' additionally gives me ' WARN_ON()' in case of 'i_nlink' > > > > wrapping. > > > > > > So does inc_nlink() when you are asking to get from nlink=0 to nlink=1. > > > I.e. on failure exit in your unlink()... > > > > Indeed! I'll switch to 'clear_nlink(inode)' and 'set_nlink(inode, 1)' > > for those inodes which are being unliked. > > Huh? I thought ubifs allowed link(2)... IOW, i_nlink could've been greater > than 1 when you called ubifs_unlink(). You are right, I'll take this correctly when I change the code rather than writing an e-mail. Thanks! I think I'll submit a patch this week. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part