From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:22:18 -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 m5SFMDGd010812 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:22:14 -0700 Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id AD4AD79707D for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2l2eyhuGMIWF0Z5S for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:23:03 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option Message-ID: <20080628152303.GA22484@lst.de> References: <20080627153928.GA31384@lst.de> <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:09:14AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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. Well, it allows showing 64bit inode numbers to userspace. All XFS internal codepathes are still using the smaller inode numbers and we only add a fixed offset to them just before the inode number is returned to userspace.