From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [sysfs] why ->delete_inode() instead of ->clear_inode()?
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 06:43:21 +0100
Message-ID: <20100529054321.GN31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@aristanetworks.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:48412 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750960Ab0E2FnW (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 29 May 2010 01:43:22 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

	Is there any problem with simply doing

void sysfs_clear_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
	struct sysfs_dirent *sd  = inode->i_private;
	sysfs_put(sd);
}

instead of (mis)using ->delete_inode()?  Note that clear_inode() is
not going to be called on any inodes with positive i_count, that
you are forcibly evicting them from icache on the final iput() anyway
and that clear_inode() is never called twice on the same struct
inode()...

Al, very unenthusiastic about ->delete_inode() instances in general - that
sucker gets abused in the strangest ways by a lot of filesystems ;-/