[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070706135156.GD10812@fieldses.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:51:56 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org
Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:32:00PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jul 03, 2007 18:15 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > How will nfsd tell whether it can really on a given filesystem's
> > i_version, or whether it should fall back on ctime?
>
> Good question.
Well, we don't need anything particularly complicated--just a one-bit
flag on the superblock would be enough.
> > So what's the motivation for the "noversion" mount option?
>
> Lustre needs to be able to control the version number directly (version
> number needs to be ordered between all inodes, is set by Lustre to be a
> transaction number). Instead of trying to incorporate this unused code
> into ext4 we just turn off the ext4 version code and let Lustre control
> this directly. It may even be that NFSv4 will need to control the version
> numbers itself...
I can't think of any reason we would need to in the near future, but
maybe I'm insufficiently creative.
The use of a mount option means the change attribute could be
inconsistent across mounts. If we really need this, wouldn't it make
more sense for it to be a persistent feature of the filesystem, set at
mkfs time?
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists