Re: [PATCH 15/18] fs: introduce a per-cpu last_ino allocator

Nick Piggin
2010-10-16T17:21:23Z

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.