From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:05:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20070207110519.GA5361@duck.suse.cz> References: <20070207104549.GF24590@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk To: Pekka J Enberg Return-path: Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:50761 "EHLO duck.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161180AbXBGLCc (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:02:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed 07-02-07 12:50:34, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > Hi Honza, > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Jan Kara wrote: > > Have you considered using similar hack as bad_inode.c instead of > > revoked_inode.c? > > I am not sure what you mean, revoked_inode.c looks pretty much the same as > bad_inode.c in mainline... Oops, sorry for confusion. I was looking into 2.6.19 and there the code looks differently. In 2.6.20, obviously your method was preferred. Honza -- Jan Kara SuSE CR Labs