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

[Daniel Phillips]

On January 3, 2002 04:45 pm, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> 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.

--
Daniel