From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37644C433E6 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FE864E84 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:48:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A7FE864E84 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E92306B0006; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E415F6B006C; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:48:41 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D57A46B006E; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:48:41 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0233.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.233]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4CB6B0006 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70849180AD80F for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:48:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77795835642.11.men18_611697427600 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463F8180F9825 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:48:41 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: men18_611697427600 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2374 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56F7664E28; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:48:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1612806519; bh=zcrfBV/hRGvlrzEODhD3RrXvNDEl99yvRmZk381j244=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mIAzVMKyC3e53aP+R23D+0TBSR5bgfCs+hMu9RwVHQTmwXPfRsbEWaqb55G7AANzq 3ixfmgywC//f0R/ke6GQJTWbahXArazeKLWPFPnEzuHztrZmOtvlekb60uwMMy7IkG gP66ciCkAkhCtaPMI1OHzM/U3hAcqE/Jq/xLI1jU= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:48:38 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Seth Forshee Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Hugh Dickins , Chris Down , Amir Goldstein , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , 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: <20210208094838.74c7ca910a16f33aacacb4b0@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20210205230620.518245-1-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <20210207144831.lsrm74ypbz7i37uz@box> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:06:58 -0600 Seth Forshee 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.