From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kirill Korotaev Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] add lazy_getattr and lazy_readdir patches that defer i_ino assignment Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:17:49 +0300 Message-ID: <45BF7DBD.8000606@sw.ru> References: <200701301538.l0UFcGNX027715@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> <45BF7499.1000805@sw.ru> <45BF754A.1030307@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dada1@cosmosbay.com, dev@openvz.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:14130 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965600AbXA3RHB (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:07:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <45BF754A.1030307@redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org >>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? yep! Thanks, Kirill