On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 01:31:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:00:29PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > index 49a058c73e4c..26f74e092bd9 100644 > > > --- a/fs/pnode.h > > > +++ b/fs/pnode.h > > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ int propagate_mount_busy(struct mount *, int); > > > void propagate_mount_unlock(struct mount *); > > > void mnt_release_group_id(struct mount *); > > > int get_dominating_id(struct mount *mnt, const struct path *root); > > > -unsigned int mnt_get_count(struct mount *mnt); > > > +int mnt_get_count(struct mount *mnt); > > > void mnt_set_mountpoint(struct mount *, struct mountpoint *, > > > struct mount *); > > > void mnt_change_mountpoint(struct mount *parent, struct mountpoint *mp, > > > > Miklos, are you planning to send this as a formal patch? > > Hold it for a while, OK? There's an unpleasant issue (a very long-standing > one) with boxen that have an obscene amount of RAM. Some of the counters > involved will need to become long. This is the coming cycle fodder (mounts > and inodes are relatively easy; it's dentry->d_count that brings arseloads > of fun) and I'd rather deal with that sanity check as part of the same series. > It's not forgotten... Patch series re limiting the number of negative > dentries is also getting into the same mix. Watch #work.dcache - what's > in there is basically prep work for the big pile for the next cycle; it'll > be interesting... Al, whatever happened to the refcounting patches you mentioned here? - Eric
