Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...>
Cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@...>, <akpm@...>, <dev@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-fsdevel@...>, <torvalds@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 9:28 pm

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jeff Layton wrote:

Well, we have that problem with the slowly incrementing "last_ino" too.

Should we make "last_ino" be "static unsigned int" instead of "long"?

Does anybody actually even use the old stat() with 32-bit interfaces? We 
warn for it, and we've done so for a long time.. I dont' remember people 
even complaining about the warning, so..

		Linus
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers, Bodo Eggert, (Tue Jan 30, 6:40 pm)
Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers, Jeff Layton, (Tue Jan 30, 9:19 pm)
Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers, Jeff Layton, (Tue Jan 30, 9:37 pm)
Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Jan 30, 9:28 pm)
Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers, Kirill Korotaev, (Wed Jan 31, 5:19 am)
Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers, Jeff Layton, (Tue Jan 30, 10:02 pm)
Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Jan 30, 6:55 pm)
Re: [PATCH] pipefs unique inode numbers, Jeff Layton, (Tue Jan 30, 8:12 pm)