[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGudoHFgf3pCAOfp7cXc4Y6pmrVRjG9R79Ak16kcMUq+uQyUfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:09:16 +0200
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, josef@...icpanda.com, kernel-team@...com,
amir73il@...il.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] hide ->i_state behind accessors
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:19 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 03:58:48PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > This is generated against:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git/commit/?h=vfs-6.18.inode.refcount.preliminaries
>
> Given how late in the cycle it is I'm going to push this into the v6.19
> merge window. You don't need to resend. We might get by with applying
> and rebasing given that it's fairly mechanincal overall. Objections
> Mateusz?
First a nit: if the prelim branch is going in, you may want to adjust
the dump_inode commit to use icount_read instead of
atomic_read(&inode->i_count));
Getting this in *now* is indeed not worth it, so I support the idea.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists