From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] fixes for 3.12-final
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:16:55 -0500
Message-ID: <20131113151655.GG28033@fieldses.org>
References: <20131103015803.GK13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFy3tAeLYL3_+PbeD15p6PGS-P7bs8fMUaRVSC0OCzvq6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131103195452.GL13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFwW9s3GCa+zNTMg7m44-cj2RdJp7wRpCnPUvQHm9xYnFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131104005300.GM13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20131106151003.GA21425@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20131113144353.GE28033@fieldses.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131113144353.GE28033@fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

(Argh, sorry, with the right stable address cc'd this time I hope.)

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:10:04PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> FWIW, not taking ->i_lock there definitely looks like a good thing.  As for
> 64bit ->i_ino itself...  Looks like the main problem is the shitload of
> printks - the actual uses of ->i_ino are fine, but these suckers create
> a lot of noise.  So for now I'm going with Bruce's variant; 64bit i_ino
> doesn't look too bad (even on i386, actually), but it'll have to wait
> until 3.14.  Too noisy and late in this cycle...

I believe we also want that in stable?

950ee9566a5b6cc45d15f5fe044bab4f1e8b62cb "exportfs: fix 32-bit nfsd
handling of 64-bit inode numbers"

--b.