Re: cramfs and named-pipe

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Aug 20 2008 - 16:19:05 EST


On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:52:20 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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!)

<crickets chirping>

Oh well, I'll send it in.
--
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/