Re: is the inode an orphan?

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@yandex.ru>]

Hi,

Jan Kara wrote:
>> In our FS when we're in ->unlink() and i_nlink becomes 0, we have to record 
>> this inode in the table of orphans, and remove it from there in 
>> ->delete_inode(). This is needed to be able to dispose of orphans in case 
>> of an unclean reboot on the next mount. AFAIK, ext3 has something similar. 
>> I just figured that this could be optimized - in most cases 
>> ->delete_inode() is called right after ->unlink(), and I wanted to avoid 
>> putting the inode to the orphan table in those cases.
>   Yes, ext3 has something similar. But actually ext3 would have to insert
> inode in the orphan list anyway - in delete_inode we do truncate and
> for it we also insert the inode into the orphan list because truncate
> can be too large to fit into a single transaction.

Ok, thanks for this point.

>   Hmm, I'm just not sure whether unlink cannot somehow race with open
> (at least I don't see any lock that would prevent open while unlink is
> in progress)...

And this.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)