lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: cramfs and named-pipe
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:09:09 +0900 (JST)
Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:03:47 +0100, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > Eeek... I'd rather not play these games with directories and devices nodes
> > as well. Rationale for the original patch simply doesn't apply for those.
> >
> > IOW, I think it would be much saner if we did the following: make ..._test()
> > refuse to merge inodes with ->i_ino == 1, take inode setup back to
> > get_cramfs_inode() and make ->drop_inode() evict ones with ->i_ino == 1
> > immediately. Comments?
> >
> > Patch below is completely untested; it builds, but that's it.
>
> Thanks, your patch works well for me. But it looks a bit large for
> stable tree (100 line rule).
>
> With current code, I think no problem on empty directories and device
> nodes. So how about fixing only FIFO case first (and send it to
> stable tree) and then go to your patch?
>

Nothing seems to have happened. Al, do you think your (now tested) patch
is good for 2.6.27 and 2.6.26.x? And, it seems, 2.6.25.x. (All the way
down to 2.6.14.x!)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-16 00:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site