From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: 64-bit inode number issues Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 22:00:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20061008020035.GE5478@thunk.org> References: <13246.1159971501@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060928164529.GA3497@infradead.org> <13329.1159971829@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , aviro@redhat.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:15581 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbWJHCAu (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Oct 2006 22:00:50 -0400 To: David Howells Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13329.1159971829@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 03:23:49PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > David Howells wrote: > > > This problem doesn't just apply to NFS. It applies to any filesystem that can > > generate 64-bit inode numbers - which includes Ext3, I believe > > Actually, Ext3 can't do 64-bit inode numbers. I'd misremembered what Stephen > told me. Nope, we've thought about using 64-bit inode numbers for ext4, however --- it would solve a number of problems for us. Unfortunately, given issues with 64-bit inods at the VFS, glibc, and userspace layers, we decided it wasn't worth the pain and suffering that would be involved.... - Ted