On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:44:18AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Bumping ->i_count on inode is _not_ an option - think what it does if
> > you umount the first fs.
>
> what it does? Unless I'm missing something the fs never cares and never
> sees the bd_inode. the fs just does a bdget and then it works only on
> the bdev. What should I run to get the oops exactly?
It sees an active inode for superblock we are destroying. _Not_ a good
thing, for very obvious reasons. There is a reason for "Self-destruct in
5 seconds" printk...
> If we need to avoid the bumping of i_count and to allocate something
> dynamically that will be the bd_mapping address space, we don't need a
> new fake_inode there too, we just need to share the new physical
> pagecahce address space. Such physical i_mapping address space is the
What are you going to use as mapping->host for it?
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 21:00:24 EST