On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 02:02:07AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > Hmm... ..._once() variants are trivially dropped, IMO. dentry_inode_once() > is so bloody special that it *SHOULD* stick out; we don't have any places > like that, anyway. > > I'm somewhat tempted to do this: > fs_inode -> d_inode > fs_inode_once ->d_inode_rcu (it's not quite ->d_revalidate()-only, there's > a bit in autofs ->d_manage() as well) > dentry_inode -> something. d_opened_inode() might do, but I'm not sure - > still sounds a bit wrong to me. What it's about is "the actual fs object > behind this name, maybe from upper fs, maybe showing through from underlying > layer". It's not always opened; it's what we'd get if we opened it (and > hadn't triggered any copyups, that is). E.g. sys_getxattr() would want to > use that, even if nobody has opened that sucker yet, etc. *snort* d_inode/d_inode_rcu/[d_]inode_here(), perhaps? ;-) -- 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
