From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754032Ab0JPJJV (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2010 05:09:21 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:50832 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751044Ab0JPJJT (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2010 05:09:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZVJM0tK22z2RKKnbNgTHCSjZpGu6Ha/Lt0dj343eFJIt8/oypyXVOKrGc4U6gffVJ8 46Hw+Ih4F8RvZkOjUffRl4BPZ/CoboI0Sq43CJz0+u4vrhO6HYBmD4QF9HVbqzanuHCr 06aQgWCl8adLm9EGODRXGBytLOOjUK0xsjf5Y= Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode From: Eric Dumazet To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1287216853-17634-20-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> References: <1287216853-17634-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1287216853-17634-20-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:09:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1287220153.2799.101.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 à 19:14 +1100, Dave Chinner a écrit : > From: Christoph Hellwig > > Instead of always assigning an increasing inode number in new_inode > move the call to assign it into those callers that actually need it. > For now callers that need it is estimated conservatively, that is > the call is added to all filesystems that do not assign an i_ino > by themselves. For a few more filesystems we can avoid assigning > any inode number given that they aren't user visible, and for others > it could be done lazily when an inode number is actually needed, > but that's left for later patches. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say : "I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because I'll take care of this myself later" would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead of a single patch. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:09:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1287220153.2799.101.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1287216853-17634-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1287216853-17634-20-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:50832 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751044Ab0JPJJT (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Oct 2010 05:09:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1287216853-17634-20-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 =C3=A0 19:14 +1100, Dave Chinner a =C3=A9crit= : > From: Christoph Hellwig >=20 > Instead of always assigning an increasing inode number in new_inode > move the call to assign it into those callers that actually need it. > For now callers that need it is estimated conservatively, that is > the call is added to all filesystems that do not assign an i_ino > by themselves. For a few more filesystems we can avoid assigning > any inode number given that they aren't user visible, and for others > it could be done lazily when an inode number is actually needed, > but that's left for later patches. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say : "I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because I'll take care of this myself later" would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead of a single patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html