Re: [PATCH 1/2] add lazy_getattr and lazy_readdir patches that defer i_ino assignment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Kirill Korotaev wrote:
Jeff,

taking into account the discussion about unawarness/uncertainty
of whether *unique* inode number is needed at all on pipe fds and such
do we need this at all?

Thanks,
Kirill


Fair enough, perhaps we should just not worry about it, and assume that there might be collisions.

If so, I should probably just have Andrew withdraw the patch I submitted earlier to hash the inodes for pipefs. I'll look at other callers of new_inode and fix up any of the ones that need fixing.

Does that seem like the most reasonable approach?

-- Jeff
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux