From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/12: eCryptfs] Superblock operations Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:01:56 +0200 Message-ID: <1132588916.8487.3.camel@localhost> References: <20051119041130.GA15559@sshock.rn.byu.edu> <20051119041910.GF15747@sshock.rn.byu.edu> <84144f020511190250x2efdbfb4vf33245b3f7216fe5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Phillip Hellewell , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, mike@halcrow.us, mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, mcthomps@us.ibm.com, yoder1@us.ibm.com Return-path: To: Michael Thompson In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi, On 11/19/05, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > +/** > > > + * This is called through iput_final(). > > > + * This is function will replace generic_drop_inode. The end result of which > > > + * is we are skipping the check in inode->i_nlink, which we do not use. > > > + */ > > > +static void ecryptfs_drop_inode(struct inode *inode) { > > > + generic_delete_inode(inode); > > > +} > > > > Please drop this useless wrapper and introduce it when it actually > > does something. On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 09:57 -0600, Michael Thompson wrote: > I don't see a problem with doing that, but perhaps there is? Please > elaborate if so. You can set ecryptfs_sops->drop_inode to generic_delete_inode directly, no? Pekka