From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] add lazy_getattr and lazy_readdir patches that defer i_ino assignment Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:41:46 -0500 Message-ID: <45BF754A.1030307@redhat.com> References: <200701301538.l0UFcGNX027715@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> <45BF7499.1000805@sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dada1@cosmosbay.com, dev@openvz.org To: Kirill Korotaev Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:53041 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965571AbXA3Qm4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:42:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <45BF7499.1000805@sw.ru> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Kirill Korotaev wrote: > Jeff, > > taking into account the discussion about unawarness/uncertainty > of whether *unique* inode number is needed at all on pipe fds and such > do we need this at all? > > Thanks, > Kirill > Fair enough, perhaps we should just not worry about it, and assume that there might be collisions. If so, I should probably just have Andrew withdraw the patch I submitted earlier to hash the inodes for pipefs. I'll look at other callers of new_inode and fix up any of the ones that need fixing. Does that seem like the most reasonable approach? -- Jeff