On Thu, 08 Mar 2001, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:16:10AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > I'm not sure on your #2. In principle, ->i_fop can be NULL. It may be
> > a good thing to declare that it should never happens, but right now it's
> > not guaranteed.
> >
> > Besides, revoke-like thing in proc/generic.c _does_ set f_op to NULL.
> > It's damn ugly and the whole kill_inodes() should die slow and painful
> > death, but right now that's the way it is done. Same thing for devfs,
> > BTW - not that I thought that devfs deserved a different fate, but...
>
> I'd rather see it set to null_file_ops then NULL. If it can be null,
> that means we need to go through the fs directory adding them; there
> are a few places it isn't checked right now.
I would like to see the (struct file *) in ->readpage go away. I don't
think there is a technical obstacle to doing that, since the same
parameter was removed from ->writepage without much fuss. The code
impact is in samba, coda and nfs. All block filesystems just supply a
NULL there. This is ugly.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
