On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:34 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Miklos, > > This is v2 of the ino patches. > v1 is here [1]. I reabsed to overlayfs-next and addressed > your comments on the ino collision patch. > > The branch passes overlay xfstests including the new tests 07[01] > that I wrote to test this series. > > Note that i_ino uses the private atomic counter not only for xino > overflow case, but also for non-samefs with xino disabled, but it is > only used for directory inodes. I don't think that should cause any > performance regressions and the kernel gets rid of a potentially > massive abuser of the global get_next_ino() pool. Pushed these to #overlayfs-next I'm running my tests, but the more the merrier. Thanks, Miklos
