lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.10-pre11


On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> what other design solution do you propose rather both inodes sharing the
> i_mapping across the different inodes like I did?
>
> I found more handy to just bump the i_count of the first inode and
> referencing it from the bd_inode, rather than dynamically allocating the
> i_mapping and have a bd_mapping, but if you prefer to dynamically
> allocate the i_mapping rather than using the i_data of the fist inode we
> can change that of course. Not sure what's the mess in the patch you're
> talking about, could you elaborate?

Bumping ->i_count on inode is _not_ an option - think what it does if
you umount the first fs.

_If_ you need an inode for block_device - allocate a new one instead of
reusing the inode that had been passed to ->open().

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.133 / U:45.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site