On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10:19:11AM GMT, Linus Torvalds wrote: > .. and one more comment on that patch: it would probably be a good > idea to make sure that the __I_xyz constants that are used for this > are in the range 0-3. > > It doesn't really *matter*, in the sense that it will all just be a > cookie with a random address, but if anybody else ever uses the same > trick (or just uses bit_waitqueue) for another field in the inode, the > two cookies might end up being the same if you are very unlucky. > > So from a future-proofing standpoint it would be good if the cookies > that are used are always "within" the address range of i_state. > > I don't think any of the bits in i_state have any actual meaning, so > moving the bits around shouldn't be a problem. Yeah, I reordered. I did not think this too big of an issue but you're right.
