Re: [PATCH 6/12: eCryptfs] Superblock operations

[Michael Thompson <michael.craig.thompson@gmail.com>]

On 11/21/05, Michael Thompson <michael.craig.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/05, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/19/05, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * This is called through iput_final().
> > > > > + * This is function will replace generic_drop_inode. The end result of which
> > > > > + * is we are skipping the check in inode->i_nlink, which we do not use.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static void ecryptfs_drop_inode(struct inode *inode) {
> > > > > +       generic_delete_inode(inode);
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > Please drop this useless wrapper and introduce it when it actually
> > > > does something.
> >
> > On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 09:57 -0600, Michael Thompson wrote:
> > > I don't see a problem with doing that, but perhaps there is? Please
> > > elaborate if so.
> >
> > You can set ecryptfs_sops->drop_inode to generic_delete_inode directly,
> > no?
>
> 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 ;)

>
> >
> >                         Pekka
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Michael C. Thompson <mcthomps@us.ibm.com>
> Software-Engineer, IBM LTC Security
>


--
Michael C. Thompson <mcthomps@us.ibm.com>
Software-Engineer, IBM LTC Security