Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 18 Sep 2001 05:44:18 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |