Re: [PATCH]: initialize parts of udf inode earlier in create

["Dan Bastone" <dan@pwienterprises.com>]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:45:03 -0500, "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@sandeen.net>
said:
> That looks fine to me, but I wonder if there's a cleaner way, rather
> than sprinkling these initializations in the code.  If __udf_read_inode
> fails, then it calls mark_bad_inode; maybe the code should check for
> that before trying to discard prealloced blocks?  I don't really know
> enough about all the UDF codepaths (by far!) to know for sure what the
> best solution is, here.

I'm certainly not an expert on this code either, but it seems like doing
the initializations once in udf_alloc_inode() makes the most sense.  As
I said it should fix both of the scenarios you & I experienced as well
as any others that assume the udf_inode_info structs are zeroed.  Now
that I look at it again, I think it also makes the initializations in
udf_new_inode() redundant.

So, assuming my previous patch is applied and yours is not, I think the
following is right:

---

Signed-off-by: Dan Bastone <dan@pwienterprises.com>

--- linux-2.6.17.7/fs/udf/ialloc.c.orig
+++ linux-2.6.17.7/fs/udf/ialloc.c
@@ -84,11 +84,6 @@
        }

        mutex_lock(&sbi->s_alloc_mutex);
-       UDF_I_UNIQUE(inode) = 0;
-       UDF_I_LENEXTENTS(inode) = 0;
-       UDF_I_NEXT_ALLOC_BLOCK(inode) = 0;
-       UDF_I_NEXT_ALLOC_GOAL(inode) = 0;
-       UDF_I_STRAT4096(inode) = 0;
        if (UDF_SB_LVIDBH(sb))
        {
                struct logicalVolHeaderDesc *lvhd;

---

Dan

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow