On January 3, 2002 05:47 pm, Alexander Viro wrote:
> 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.
Sockfs - yes, you'll see my patch already does it correctly, I was getting
a little tired when writing the previous reply... rd_load_image in 2.4.17 is
still using kdev_t there, however, no super_block anywhere to be seen. I'll
track that change if it happens before I bring the patches forward to 2.5.
-- Daniel - 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 - 21:00:22 EST