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 18:20:32 +0200 Message-ID: <1132590032.8487.9.camel@localhost> References: <20051119041130.GA15559@sshock.rn.byu.edu> <20051119041910.GF15747@sshock.rn.byu.edu> <84144f020511190250x2efdbfb4vf33245b3f7216fe5@mail.gmail.com> <1132588916.8487.3.camel@localhost> 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 Michael, On 11/21/05, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > You can set ecryptfs_sops->drop_inode to generic_delete_inode directly, > > > no? On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 09:57 -0600, Michael Thompson wrote: > > Yes, I do believe I could do that and save a function call. My mind is > > wobbely today. > > Very wobbley, can't even spell right. Is this an acceptable solution? > I didn't even bother to ask that ;) Yes, that's what I was suggesting. Pekka