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.
Linus
