On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 04:35:24PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 08:34:35AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 05:30:59PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > > > It still is useless. E.g. btrfs has duplicate inode numbers due to > > > > subvolumes. > > > > > > At least it reflects what users see. > > > > Users generally don't see inode numbers. > > > > > > If you want a better pretty but not useful value just work on making > > > > i_ino 64-bits wide, which is long overdue. > > > > > > That would require too much work for me, and this would be a pain to > > > backport to all stable kernels. > > > > Well, if doing the right thing is too hard we can easily do nothing. > > > > In case it wan't clear, this thread has been a very explicit: > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > This must be typo and you want a NAK here, right? Yes :)
