Josef Sipek: > > - dentry->d_inode->i_nlink = get_nlinks(dentry->d_inode); > > + //dentry->d_inode->i_nlink = get_nlinks(dentry->d_inode); > > > > Seems like a left over from during coding...Is it commented out on purpose? > (There are few instances of get_nlinks getting commented out.)
That is the question which I wanted to ask you. I think the parent-dir i_nlink needs to be updated when a child-dir is created or removed. In this function, the deleted children are all regular file, instead of dir. So updating i_nlink is un-necessary, I think. There are several get_nlinks calls in current unionfs, which seems to be unnecessary as my thoughts. But I am still thinking it is correct or not. > Also, can the function be reused elsewhere? (There are a number of > places where we do the save fsuid, do_foo, restore fsuid trick.) Do you mean it is struct superio, instead of delete_whiteouts() function, don't you? Yes, I think superio is reusable. Junjiro Okajima _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
