Jérôme Duval <korli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2010/4/8 Janito Ferreira Filho <jvffprog@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > when I began to study the ext2 code, one of the first things I ran > > into was > > a little todo that says there was a little "hack" that used > > get_vnode > > instead of publish_vnode to create the vnode of the root directory > > so it can > > create it's file cache. How can I "fix" this "hack"? If I > > understood the > > problem correctly, we use get_vnode because it will call the > > volume's > > get_vnode hook which will create an Inode class and then the object > > will > > create a file_cache for that root directory. Is there some sort of > > a > > dependency problem here, or is the trouble somewhere else? Can't we > > just > > create the Inode object (outside of the volume object) and then > > simply > > publish it? Or is something missing? Thanks, > I'm not sure as the TODO comment seems to date from the first commit > by Axel. Unfortunately, I don't remember the problem. However, exchanging the get_vnode() (which requires the mount ops to be filled out and used during mounting, that's why this is a hack) with publish_vnode() should give a hint. > As I understand it, the bfs code now does a publish_vnode(). Maybe > see > how it was changed in this commit by Ingo: No, this has nothing to do with it. Bye, Axel.