[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51546F32.7000609@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:26:26 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>,
Anand Avati <anand.avati@...il.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
gluster-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies
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@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
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