From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:30:35 -0400
Message-ID: <20101016163035.GC20086@infradead.org>
References: <1286928961-15157-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <1286928961-15157-19-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20101016075728.GT19147@amd>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([134.117.69.58]:55162 "EHLO
	canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751714Ab0JPQah (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:30:37 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101016075728.GT19147@amd>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:57:28PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> My patch for this reduces churn by just adding a new function instead.
> The last_ino allocator is really fast now, so IMO it was not worth
> the churn to go through filesystems; just let them do it.

See the last comment on this.  Allocating an inode and assigning a badly
made up ino for a handfull synthetic filesystems are very different
things.  Mixing them up in one function always was a bad idea.