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
