>>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? yep! Thanks, Kirill - 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
