From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5S08F2c003746 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:08:15 -0700 Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B0610296740 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.57]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id D7Hkn84drpeQrVgh for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:09:14 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option Message-ID: <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> References: <20080627153928.GA31384@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080627153928.GA31384@lst.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:39:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Does anyone have objections to kill the ino64 mount option? It's purely > a debug tool to force inode numbers outside of the range representable > in 32bits and is quite invasive for something that could easily be > debugged by just having a large enough filesystem.. It's the "large enough fs" that is the problem. XFSQA uses small partitions for the most part, and this allows testing of 64 bit inode numbers with a standard qa config. That being said, I don't really if it goes or stays... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com