Re: update for 2.1.56 smbfs

Bill Hawes (whawes@star.net)
Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:02:00 -0400


Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I suspect that it might be more straightforward to just re-instate the
> i_dentry list. The reason I removed it was not because the i_dentry list
> was evil in itself, it was that nobody used it and I prefer trying to
> remove features that nobody uses because otherwise they tend to become
> barnacles over time.

The i_dentry list would make this easy, but on the other hand the
unhashing operation should be very infrequent. I'm still trying to
figure out the best way to handle the "inode goes bad" problem, which
could never happen on a local filesystem. Unhashing the dentry(ies)
seems to be a desirable step, though not sufficient in itself.

I agree that i_dentry was being misused originally, and the right
solution is to pass the dentry wherever a unique name reference is
needed.

Regards,
Bill