Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:06:58 -0600
From:   Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: Disallow CONFIG_TMPFS_INODE64 on s390
Message-ID: <YCE3cjDNOvpeCCeA@ubuntu-x1>
References: <20210205230620.518245-1-seth.forshee@canonical.com>
 <20210207144831.lsrm74ypbz7i37uz@box>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210207144831.lsrm74ypbz7i37uz@box>
Precedence: bulk

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?