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

From: Daniel Phillips (
Date: Thu Jan 03 2002 - 11:20:12 EST

On January 3, 2002 04:45 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <> 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. (Another thing
we could do is require every inode to have a superblock - that's probably
where it will go in time.)

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? There are a lot of things I'd like to clean up
on the way through this, but it's probably best to just resist the temptation
for now.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:21 EST