Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40801-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 23:04:34 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Trace Devel <linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@broadcom.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfs: Have inodes have unique inode numbers
Message-ID: <ZbQ6gkZ78kvbcF8A@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240126150209.367ff402@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wgZEHwFRgp2Q8_-OtpCtobbuFPBmPTZ68qN3MitU-ub=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240126162626.31d90da9@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wj8WygQNgoHerp-aKyCwFxHeyKMguQszVKyJfi-=Yfadw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whNfNti-mn6vhL-v-WZnn0i7ZAbwSf_wNULJeyanhPOgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8547159a-0b28-4d75-af02-47fc450785fa@efficios.com>
 <ZbQzXfqA5vK5JXZS@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAHk-=wiF0ATuuxJhwgm707izS=5q4xBUSh+06U2VwFEJj0FNRw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiF0ATuuxJhwgm707izS=5q4xBUSh+06U2VwFEJj0FNRw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 02:48:45PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 14:34, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 05:14:12PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > I would suggest this straightforward solution to this:
> > >
> > > a) define a EVENTFS_MAX_INODES (e.g. 4096 * 8),
> > >
> > > b) keep track of inode allocation in a bitmap (within a single page),
> > >
> > > c) disallow allocating more than "EVENTFS_MAX_INODES" in eventfs.
> >
> > ... reinventing the IDA?
> 
> Guysm, this is a random number that is *so* interesting that I
> seriously think we shouldn't have it at all.
> 
> End result: nobody should care. Even the general VFS layer doesn't care.
> 
> It literally avoids inode number zero, not because it would be a bad
> inode number, but simply because of some random historical oddity.
> 
> In fact, I don't think we even have a reason for it. We have a commit
> 2adc376c5519 ("vfs: avoid creation of inode number 0 in get_next_ino")
> and that one calls out glibc for not deleting them. That makes no
> sense to me, but whatever.

Maybe we should take advantage of that historical oddity.  All files
in eventfs have inode number 0, problem solved.