From: Matt Helsley Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] [RFC] Create the .relink file_operation Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:16:28 -0700 Message-ID: <20100927191628.GN23839@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <6987185123220ec2034677299859c5a63eaf2aed.1285278339.git.matthltc@us.ibm.com> <20100926190837.GA9308@cynthia.pants.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matt Helsley , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Theodore Ts'o" , Andreas Dilger , Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro To: Brad Boyer Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100926190837.GA9308@cynthia.pants.nu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 12:08:37PM -0700, Brad Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 02:53:28PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote: > > Not all filesystems will necessarily be able to support relinking an > > orphan inode back into the filesystem. Some offlist feedback suggested > > that instead of overloading .link that relinking should be a separate > > file operation for this reason. > > > > Since .relink is a superset of .link make the VFS call .relink where > > possible and .link otherwise. > > > > The next commit will change ext3/4 to enable this operation. > > I may have missed something in one of these patches (patch 1 and any > original summary if there was one don't appear in my email), but > what is the point of the new operation? I didn't see any case that > treats one any different than the other. What is disallowed (and how) > for a driver which does not implement .relink but has .link? Did you get patch 3? It shows how ext3/ext4 add the ability to take an inode that has been unlinked, placed onto the orphan list, and relink it. Cheers, -Matt Helsley