On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:17:10AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:39 AM Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I couldn't spot any and also gave the patch below a try and my system > > still boots without any errors. > > So, as far as I can tell it _should_ be ok to change this. > > So your patch (with the fix on top) looks sane to me. > > I'm not entirely sure it is worth it, but the fact that we've had bugs > wrt this before does seem to imply that we should do this. > > I'd remove the __kernel_ino_t type entirely, but I wonder if user > space might depend on it. I do find > > #ifndef __kernel_ino_t > typedef __kernel_ulong_t __kernel_ino_t; > #endif > > in the GNU libc headers I have, but then I don't find any actual use > of that, so it looks like it may be jyst a "we copied things for other > reasons". > > On the whole I think this would be the right thing to do, but I'm a > bit worried that it's more pain that it might be worth. > > Heiko, I think I'll leave this decision entirely to you. If you think > it's worth it to avoid any possible future pain wrt this odd inode > number thing for s390, just add it to the s390 tree with my ack. > Because honestly, I think s390 is the only architecture that really > cares by now. So, yes. We will go to change this to hopefully avoid future problems. The patch is supposed to be part of the next merge window and converts both s390 and alpha, unless somebody objects. After that has been merged I'll provide a follow-on patch which enables TMPFS_INODE64 for alpha and s390 again, and yet another one which removes __kernel_ino_t as suggested by you.
