Re: Modular filesystem using drop_inode would need inode_lock

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:43:32PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> This is mostly a logical inconsistency at the moment (since the
>> only filesystem that has a "drop_inode" function defined in its
>> super_operations is hugetlbfs, and it is unlikely to move out of

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:06:44PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> And btw, ->drop_inode usage in hugetlbfs is also a really bad idea,
> it's duplicating large parts of fs/inode.c and is already missing
> all kinds of updates.

I suppose this reply is a bit late, but...

I'd be happy to hear of alternative methods of dealing with hugetlbfs'
operational constraints. The unusability of the core VM function
truncate_inode_pages() on hugetlb pagecache was IIRC be the primary
reason for it, but there also appears to be some inode management going
on there now that it's been disturbed by someone else.


-- wli