On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, 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. (Another thing
> we could do is require every inode to have a superblock - that's probably
> where it will go in time.)
It's _already_ there. RTFS, please - sock_alloc() creates inodes with
sockfs superblock in ->i_sb and rd_load_image() just does normal open()
for device nodes on rootfs.
Please, don't reintroduce the crap we'd already killed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:21 EST