On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:26:45PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > I don't like filesystem doings things like this in ->put_inode at all, > > and indeed the plan is to get rid of ->put_inode completely. Why do > > you need to hold an additional reference anyway? What's so special > > about the relation of these two inodes? > > The bmp_ino is a virtual inode. It doesn't exist on disk as an inode. > It is an NTFS attribute of the base inode. It cannot exist without the > base inode there. You could neither read from nor write to this inode > without its base inode being there and you couldn't even clear_inode() > this inode without the base inode being there. The reference is > essential I am afraid. > > If ->put_inode is removed then I will have to switch to using > ntfs_attr_iget() each time or I will have to attach the inode in some > other much hackier way that doesn't use the i_count and uses my ntfs > private counter instead.
Coming back to this issue. Why do you need to refcount bmp_ino at all? Can someone ever grab a reference separate from it's master inode? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
