Re: cramfs and named-pipe

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:09:09 +0900 (JST)
Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:03:47 +0100, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Eeek...  I'd rather not play these games with directories and devices nodes
> > as well.  Rationale for the original patch simply doesn't apply for those.
> > 
> > IOW, I think it would be much saner if we did the following: make ..._test()
> > refuse to merge inodes with ->i_ino == 1, take inode setup back to
> > get_cramfs_inode() and make ->drop_inode() evict ones with ->i_ino == 1
> > immediately.  Comments?
> > 
> > Patch below is completely untested; it builds, but that's it.
> 
> Thanks, your patch works well for me.  But it looks a bit large for
> stable tree (100 line rule).
> 
> With current code, I think no problem on empty directories and device
> nodes.  So how about fixing only FIFO case first (and send it to
> stable tree) and then go to your patch?
> 

Nothing seems to have happened.  Al, do you think your (now tested) patch
is good for 2.6.27 and 2.6.26.x?  And, it seems, 2.6.25.x.  (All the way
down to 2.6.14.x!)
--
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/