Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode

Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16T16:35:20Z

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say :
>
> "I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because
> I'll take care of this myself later"
>
> would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead
> of a single patch.

What's the point, really? Assigning i_ino in new_inode always has been
an utterly stupid idea to start with. I fixed the few filesystem that
need it to do it explicitly. There's nothing unsafe about it - checking
callers of new_inode for manual i_ino assignment was trivial.

Conditional code like the one you suggested is simply evil - it
complicates things instead of simplifying them.