Re: iunique() fails to return ino_t (after commit 866b04fccbf125cd)

2007-09-17 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:06:15 +0530 "Satyam Sharma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/17/07, Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:58:54 +0530 > > "Satyam Sharma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > > > I think commit 866b04fccbf125cd39f2bdbcfeaa611d39a

Re: iunique() fails to return ino_t (after commit 866b04fccbf125cd)

2007-09-16 Thread Satyam Sharma
On 9/17/07, Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:58:54 +0530 > "Satyam Sharma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > I think commit 866b04fccbf125cd39f2bdbcfeaa611d39a061a8 was wrong, and > > introduced a regression. > > > > The "relevant" changelog [*] of tha

Re: iunique() fails to return ino_t (after commit 866b04fccbf125cd)

2007-09-16 Thread Jeff Layton
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:58:54 +0530 "Satyam Sharma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I think commit 866b04fccbf125cd39f2bdbcfeaa611d39a061a8 was wrong, and > introduced a regression. > > The "relevant" changelog [*] of that patch says: > > > > on filesystems w/o permanent inode number

Re: iunique() fails to return ino_t (after commit 866b04fccbf125cd)

2007-09-16 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:58:54 +0530 "Satyam Sharma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [*] BTW, the changelog/patch description of this commit demonstrates > why it is a Bad Thing (tm) to have lengthy [PATCH 0/x] kind of mails > (containing important technical details) preceding a patchset. > > I can on