On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 01:23:13PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:55:43 -0600 Seth Forshee
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 12:41:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:59 -0600 Seth Forshee
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Currently there seems
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:55:43 -0600 Seth Forshee
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 12:41:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:59 -0600 Seth Forshee
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Currently there seems to be an assumption in tmpfs that 64-bit
> > > architectures also have a 64-bit
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 12:41:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:59 -0600 Seth Forshee
> wrote:
>
> > Currently there seems to be an assumption in tmpfs that 64-bit
> > architectures also have a 64-bit ino_t. This is not true; s390 at
> > least has a 32-bit ino_t. With
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:59 -0600 Seth Forshee
wrote:
> Currently there seems to be an assumption in tmpfs that 64-bit
> architectures also have a 64-bit ino_t. This is not true; s390 at
> least has a 32-bit ino_t. With CONFIG_TMPFS_INODE64=y tmpfs
> mounts will get 64-bit inode numbers and dis
Currently there seems to be an assumption in tmpfs that 64-bit
architectures also have a 64-bit ino_t. This is not true; s390 at
least has a 32-bit ino_t. With CONFIG_TMPFS_INODE64=y tmpfs
mounts will get 64-bit inode numbers and display "inode64" in the
mount options, but passing the "inode64" mou
5 matches
Mail list logo