Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tmpfs: Add per-superblock i_ino support

[Chris Down]

Amir Goldstein writes:
> Wouldn't it be easier to check max_inodes instead of passing this
> use_sb_ino arg?
> Is there any case where they *need* to differ?

Hmm, I suppose probably not? In that case should I just check against 
SB_KERNMOUNT, since max_inodes can only be 0 in that case?

> > @@ -3378,6 +3411,8 @@ enum shmem_param {
> >         Opt_nr_inodes,
> >         Opt_size,
> >         Opt_uid,
> > +       Opt_inode32,
> > +       Opt_inode64,
>
> Does not belong to this patch..
>
> >  };
> >
> >  static const struct fs_parameter_spec shmem_param_specs[] = {
> > @@ -3389,6 +3424,8 @@ static const struct fs_parameter_spec shmem_param_specs[] = {
> >         fsparam_string("nr_inodes",     Opt_nr_inodes),
> >         fsparam_string("size",          Opt_size),
> >         fsparam_u32   ("uid",           Opt_uid),
> > +       fsparam_flag  ("inode32",       Opt_inode32),
> > +       fsparam_flag  ("inode64",       Opt_inode64),
>
> Ditto

Bleh, I'll fix this and send v3.

> >         {}
> >  };
> >
> > @@ -3690,7 +3727,8 @@ static int shmem_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc)
> >  #endif
> >         uuid_gen(&sb->s_uuid);
> >
> > -       inode = shmem_get_inode(sb, NULL, S_IFDIR | sbinfo->mode, 0, VM_NORESERVE);
> > +       inode = shmem_get_inode(sb, NULL, S_IFDIR | sbinfo->mode, 0,
> > +                               VM_NORESERVE, true);
>
> Should usb_sb_ino be true for the kern_mount??
> In any case, it wouldn't matter if it was false, hence no need to pass
> an argument
> and can either check for sbinfo->max_inodes or the SB_KERNMOUNT flag in
> shmem_get_inode().

Ok, cool. I'll fix these up and send v3. Thanks!