On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Sure, we can separate the simple "just do call_rcu(...->free_inode)" case
> and hit it whenever full ->free_inode is there and ->destroy_inode isn't.
> Not too pretty, but removal of tons of boilerplate might be worth doing
> that anyway.
Yeah.
> But ->destroy_inode() is still needed for cases where fs
> has its own idea of inode lifetime rules. Again, check what XFS is doing
> in that area...
Ok, so we can't change destroy_inode, and we'd need to add a new op
for just freeing it.
Painful mainly because there are so many filesystems, but it shouldn't
be *complicated*.
> There's an extra source of headache, BTW - what about the "LSM stacking"
> crowd and their plans?
LSM stacking is a pipedream right now anyway, isn't it? It's been
talked about for years and years, I've never seen a patch-set that is
even remotely something we'd seriously consider.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
