Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:22:28 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [LART] inode mismanagement in hugetlb code |
| |
Alexander Viro wrote: > > [A discussion of the meanings of the terms "MUST", "SHOULD", and "MAY" appears > in RFC-1123; the terms "MUST NOT" and "SHOULD NOT" are logical extensions of > this usage] > > a) inodes MUST have an address of valid struct super_block in their > ->i_sb. Had been discussed quite a few times already. >
afaict, that code only wants an inode because it is borrowing the pagecache functions for page lookup. It's using i_ino as a search key too. It has no superblock.
Solutions might be: 1) allocate a private <int key, radix tree> structure or 2) require that these inodes come from hugetlbfs, although the "key" makes that a bit tricky. - 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/
| |