This feature requires ino_t be 64-bits, which is true for every
64-bit architecture but s390, so prevent this option from being
selected there.
Fixes: ea3271f7196c ("tmpfs: support 64-bit inums per-sb")
Cc: <[email protected]> # v5.9+
Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee <[email protected]>
---
fs/Kconfig | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/Kconfig b/fs/Kconfig
index aa4c12282301..3347ec7bd837 100644
--- a/fs/Kconfig
+++ b/fs/Kconfig
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ config TMPFS_XATTR
config TMPFS_INODE64
bool "Use 64-bit ino_t by default in tmpfs"
- depends on TMPFS && 64BIT
+ depends on TMPFS && 64BIT && !S390
default n
help
tmpfs has historically used only inode numbers as wide as an unsigned
--
2.29.2
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 05:06:20PM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> This feature requires ino_t be 64-bits, which is true for every
> 64-bit architecture but s390, so prevent this option from being
> selected there.
Quick grep suggests the same for alpha. Am I wrong?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 05:48:31PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 05:06:20PM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > This feature requires ino_t be 64-bits, which is true for every
> > 64-bit architecture but s390, so prevent this option from being
> > selected there.
>
> Quick grep suggests the same for alpha. Am I wrong?
No, it appears you are right. Looks like my grep missed alpha somehow.
Andrew, do you prefer an additional patch or an updated version of the
previous patch?
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:06:58 -0600 Seth Forshee <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 05:48:31PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 05:06:20PM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > > This feature requires ino_t be 64-bits, which is true for every
> > > 64-bit architecture but s390, so prevent this option from being
> > > selected there.
> >
> > Quick grep suggests the same for alpha. Am I wrong?
>
> No, it appears you are right. Looks like my grep missed alpha somehow.
>
> Andrew, do you prefer an additional patch or an updated version of the
> previous patch?
Doesn't matter much. A second patch for Alpha would be best, I guess.
Thanks.