[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.100 / U:0.956 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site