Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 18 Sep 2001 06:02:27 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.10-pre11 |
| |
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:44:18AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > Bumping ->i_count on inode is _not_ an option - think what it does if > > you umount the first fs. > > what it does? Unless I'm missing something the fs never cares and never > sees the bd_inode. the fs just does a bdget and then it works only on > the bdev. What should I run to get the oops exactly?
It sees an active inode for superblock we are destroying. _Not_ a good thing, for very obvious reasons. There is a reason for "Self-destruct in 5 seconds" printk...
> If we need to avoid the bumping of i_count and to allocate something > dynamically that will be the bd_mapping address space, we don't need a > new fake_inode there too, we just need to share the new physical > pagecahce address space. Such physical i_mapping address space is the
What are you going to use as mapping->host for it?
- 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/
|  |