On 2017/3/9 5:35, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
>>> during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
>>
>> Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino i
On 03/08, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
> > during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
>
> Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
> f2fs_evict_inode,
On 2017/3/7 5:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> If f2fs_new_inode() is failed, the bad inode will invalidate 0'th node page
> during f2fs_evict_inode(), which doesn't need to do.
Hmm...should not allow other using of inode->i_ino in following codes of
f2fs_evict_inode, right?
Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by:
3 matches
Mail list logo
