[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240126-wirksam-wenngleich-cd9573d8cb28@brauner>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:11:39 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [for-linus][PATCH 1/3] eventfs: Have the inodes all for files
and directories all be the same
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 09:07:06AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Steven.
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 7:08 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 13:07:31 -0500
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > > Actually, inodes isn't the biggest issue of tar, as tar *is* a common
> > > operation on tracefs.
> >
> > Correction. tar would be a common operation if it worked ;-)
>
> What would be needed to fix that? I regularly use tar on other virtual
> file systems (e.g. /sys/firmware/devicetree/), which works fine.
The size would be one thing. The other is that tar requires unique inode
numbers for all files iirc (That's why we have this whole btrfs problem
- let's not get into this here - where inode numbers aren't unique and
are duplicated per subvolume.).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists