Re: [LART] inode mismanagement in hugetlb code

From: Andrew Morton (akpm@digeo.com)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 14:22:28 EST


Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> [A discussion of the meanings of the terms "MUST", "SHOULD", and "MAY" appears
> in RFC-1123; the terms "MUST NOT" and "SHOULD NOT" are logical extensions of
> this usage]
>
> a) inodes MUST have an address of valid struct super_block in their
> ->i_sb. Had been discussed quite a few times already.
>

afaict, that code only wants an inode because it is borrowing
the pagecache functions for page lookup. It's using i_ino as
a search key too. It has no superblock.

Solutions might be: 1) allocate a private <int key, radix tree>
structure or 2) require that these inodes come from hugetlbfs,
although the "key" makes that a bit tricky.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:38 EST