From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751855AbWCIL16 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:27:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751852AbWCIL16 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:27:58 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:47514 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751850AbWCIL15 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:27:57 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <1141858122.11378.15.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <1141858122.11378.15.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060308203018.25493.23720.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060308203028.25493.84121.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> To: Trond Myklebust Cc: David Howells , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, steved@redhat.com, aviro@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] NFS: Unify NFS superblocks per-protocol per-server [try #7] X-Mailer: MH-E 7.92+cvs; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 22.0.50.4 Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:27:40 +0000 Message-ID: <23847.1141903660@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Trond Myklebust wrote: > > The attached patch makes NFS share superblocks between mounts from the same > > server over the same protocol. > > We want to make NFS share superblocks on a per-filesystem basis, rather > than forcing it into a per-server basis. By "per-filesystem", I presume you mean per-server-mounted-filesystem? Something like what the kAFS client tries to do. As it happens the current NFS code doesn't do this either, but it has occurred to me that this would be useful, just not necessarily easy... > Cachefs may like the latter, but POSIX does not like a filesystem where > inode numbers are not guaranteed to be unique. I don't like it either, but the situation is already present. Note that CacheFS would be happy with the former too, just as long as the keys it is given don't end up aliasing. > A unique per-server superblock also makes it hard to support features > like failover onto replicated filesystems and/or migration of individual > filesystems onto another server. So you want these patches dropping? Note that you can't necessarily do what you want with the current code either. David