From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Viro Subject: Re: 64-bit inode number issues Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 12:02:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20061008160212.GA2383@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <13246.1159971501@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060928164529.GA3497@infradead.org> <13329.1159971829@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20061008020035.GE5478@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Howells , Christoph Hellwig , aviro@redhat.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:2957 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751233AbWJHQCU (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 12:02:20 -0400 To: Theodore Tso Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061008020035.GE5478@thunk.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 10:00:35PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > 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.... VFS is fine with those... glibc probably should be OK; userland might be nasty, though.