[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130328175205.GD16651@lenny.home.zabbo.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:52:05 -0700
From: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
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 Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:07:44AM -0400, 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?
They're testing a work-around:
http://review.gluster.org/#change,4711
I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or
not.
- z
--
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