On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 21:41 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 7 November 2006 14:41:04 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > How about this patch instead here? I don't think anything depends on > > i_ino being any certain value for these files, and this seems less > > "magic-numbery". This should also mostly prevent us from assigning out > > i_ino=0. > > nfsctl_transaction_write() appears to depend on i_ino. > > Jörn > Ahh, correct. That could probably stand to be a bit more robust, but I don't want to tackle it now. How about this instead, which should just set it to the maximum allowed value of s->s_lastino? It might throw a compile-time warning about overflowing i_ino, but I think it'll still work. Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> diff --git a/fs/libfs.c b/fs/libfs.c index bd08e0e..d9f4e3e 100644 --- a/fs/libfs.c +++ b/fs/libfs.c @@ -373,6 +373,9 @@ int simple_fill_super(struct super_block inode = new_inode(s); if (!inode) return -ENOMEM; + /* ino must not collide with any ino assigned in the loop below. Set + it to the highest possible inode number */ + inode->i_ino = (1 << (sizeof(s->s_lastino) * 8)) - 1; inode->i_mode = S_IFDIR | 0755; inode->i_uid = inode->i_gid = 0; inode->i_blocks = 0; - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
