On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:59:07AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19 2009, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:46:59AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 19 2009, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > See my other reply. It *can* work with key aliases, but this particular > > > > code does not. > > > > > > > > It is pretty easy obviously to put in duplicates because the rbtree > > > > code doesn't know about keys, but if we do this then it looks like > > > > it might cause the search code to miss some valid inodes and instead > > > > return freeing inodes -- so you'd also have to look at that and update > > > > it which is why I didn't go down this route.. > > > > > > Mine was just a generic statement, I didn't read the btrfs code (hence > > > my comment about potential lookup bug, if you allow aliases you have to > > > be careful). > > > > Ah ok. Well yeah in this case btrfs is definitely wrong in the way it > > tried to insert aliases. > > I looked at the actual problem now and I agree, it cannot work that way. > I don't know if Linus is planning another -rc, we should probably get > this upstream sooner rather than later. Chris is away this week, so if > we can get Yan to agree on this patch as well, I'll submit it.
I think the first patch I submitted was agreed? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
