Re: [PATCH 1/2] add lazy_getattr and lazy_readdir patches that deferi_ino assignment

[Jeff Layton]

Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> taking into account the discussion about unawarness/uncertainty
> of whether *unique* inode number is needed at all on pipe fds and such
> do we need this at all?
>
> Thanks,
> Kirill

Fair enough, perhaps we should just not worry about it, and assume that there 
might be collisions.

If so, I should probably just have Andrew withdraw the patch I submitted earlier 
to hash the inodes for pipefs. I'll look at other callers of new_inode and fix 
up any of the ones that need fixing.

Does that seem like the most reasonable approach?

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