From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] Do not dentry_unhash in VFS (v3) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 05:46:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20110527094631.GA6702@infradead.org> References: <1306267582-5347-1-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jeffm@suse.com, jack@suse.cz, me@bobcopeland.com, tyhicks@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Sage Weil Return-path: Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:56231 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752456Ab1E0Jqf (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2011 05:46:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1306267582-5347-1-git-send-email-sage@newdream.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sage, this series still leaves a lot of dentry_unhash callsites around, can you submit some more patches to clan up after it? - bfs, sysv, jffs2, jfs, logfs, nilfs2, ubifs and ufs are plain old unix filesystems and should not have a problem. - reiserfs is a bit special but really shouldn't need it, also it has a local copy of vfs_rmdir that needs the call removed as well. - udf also seems to have normal unix semantics - same for omfs - ecryptfs just passed down requests to the lower fs and thus almost certainly doesn't need it. - hfs and hfsplus don't care - hostsfs doesn't really either Cced some more maintainers. In the end each callsite of dentry_unhash really should have a comment why it's needed or at least why we're unsure about it.