Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

On 3/28/13 9:07 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> We don't have reached a conclusion so far, do we? What about the
>>> ioctl approach, but a bit differently? Would it work to specify the
>>> allowed upper bits for ext4 (for example 16 additional bit) and the
>>> remaining part for gluster? One of the mails had the calculation
>>> formula:
>>
>> I did throw together an ioctl patch last week, but I think Anand has a new
>> approach he's trying out which won't require ext4 code changes.  I'll let
>> him reply when he has a moment.  :)
> 
> Any update about whether Gluster can address this without needing the
> ioctl patch?  Or should we push the ioctl patch into ext4 for the next
> merge window?

I went ahead & sent the ioctl patches to the ext4 list; they are lightly
tested, and not tested at all w/ gluster AFAIK.  Wanted to get them
out just in case we decide we want them.

Thanks,
-Eric

> Thanks,
> 
> 						- Ted
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>