From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/18] fs: introduce a per-cpu last_ino allocator Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 04:21:20 +1100 Message-ID: <20101016172120.GE3240@amd> References: <1286515292-15882-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1286515292-15882-16-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101008095658.GA19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20101008100346.GA27737@infradead.org> <20101016075721.GS19147@amd> <20101016162201.GF16861@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nick Piggin , Al Viro , Dave Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101016162201.GF16861@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:22:01PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:57:21PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > My approach in my tree is a new function like Al suggests, which > > simply doesn't assign the ino. That keeps compatibility backward. > > There's really no point. It is, the point is backwards compatibility and churn. It's like a single function call and a load from cache in the inode creation path -- a drop in the ocean. So it's not worth my time with the churn. > The concept of creating a new inode has > absolutely nothing to do with i_ino. We'll just need i_ino before > adding an inode to the hash. The only reason it's been done by > new_inode is historic coincidence - cleaning this mess up is a good > thing independent of making the fake inode number generation scale > better. As you can see in my patch moving it out there's actually > only very few filesystems that need it. Easy to just have a new name, IMO. But I won't get hung up arguing the point.