On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 02:56:52PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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.
Yeah, that makes sense. I'll fix up the patch before I commit it. > 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. There is plenty of code that is not really unnecessary, feel free to fix it :) Jeff. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
