On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 6:59 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > Looks good on my end, including new overlay/072. Will post it. Thanks, Amir.
