>>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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
