[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 17/18] gfs2: remove unnecessary dentry_unhash on rmdir/rename_dir

[Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>]

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@redhat.com>
> CC: cluster-devel at redhat.com
> Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>
> ---
>  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.