From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: fscache review comments, part 1 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:44:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20061004134439.GM29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20060928164529.GA3497@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:33208 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030572AbWJDNot (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:44:49 -0400 To: Christoph Hellwig Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060928164529.GA3497@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:45:29PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 02-ino64-nfs.diff: > Unfortunately there's a lot of broken userspace that can't deal > with 64bit inode numbers, so you need to make the lod behaviour > a mount option at least, probably even the default. Given that > we're going to run into problems like that it might make sense > to make the option VFS-level instead of just in nfs. (Note: > XFS already has an option like that) I don't think it belongs at VFS level. Sure, NFS might implement that, but... I'd still like to see real-life examples of such breakage before bothering with extra complexity.