Re: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de>]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:20:12PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On January 3, 2002 04:45 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > In article <E16M7Gz-00015E-00@starship.berlin> you wrote:
> > > -	inode = get_empty_inode();
> > > +	inode = get_empty_inode(sb);
> > 
> > How about killing get_empty_inode completly and using new_inode() instead?
> > There should be no regularly allocated inode without a superblock.
> 
> There are: sock_alloc rd_load_image.  However that's a nit because the new, 
> improved get_empty_inode understands the concept of null sb.

get_empty_inode is hopefully going to die in the current, non-static version.

> (Another thing 
> we could do is require every inode to have a superblock - that's probably 
> where it will go in time.)

Any inode that gets into the icache already has and superblock.
If any other are left they really should use a different allocator.

> We put this inside get_empty_inode:
> 
> 	if (inode) {
> 		inode->i_dev = sb->s_dev;
> 		inode->i_blkbits = sb->s_blocksize_bits;
> 	}
> 
> then rename it new_inode.  But this is outside of the scope of the fs.h work 
> I'm doing, don't you think?

Rename your current get_empty_inode to __get_empty_inode and mark it
static.  Add a new get_empty_inode that calls __get_empty_inode(NULL) or
better let it die.

	Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.