From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265230AbUITBSZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:18:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265234AbUITBSZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:18:25 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:11195 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265230AbUITBSY (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:18:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:18:12 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Luck, Tony" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Modular filesystem using drop_inode would need inode_lock Message-ID: <20040920011812.GQ9106@holomorphy.com> References: <20040709220644.GA6945@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040709220644.GA6945@infradead.org> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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