[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2001080259350.1884@eggly.anvils>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 03:24:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] tmpfs: Support 64-bit inums per-sb
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2020, at 16:07, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > IOWs, there are *lots* of 64bit inode numbers out there on XFS
> > filesystems....
>
> It's less likely in btrfs but +1 to all of Dave's comments. I'm happy
> to run a scan on machines in the fleet and see how many have 64 bit
> inodes (either buttery or x-y), but it's going to be a lot.
Dave, Amir, Chris, many thanks for the info you've filled in -
and absolutely no need to run any scan on your fleet for this,
I think we can be confident that even if fb had some 15-year-old tool
in use on its fleet of 2GB-file filesystems, it would not be the one
to insist on a kernel revert of 64-bit tmpfs inos.
The picture looks clear now: while ChrisD does need to hold on to his
config option and inode32/inode64 mount option patch, it is much better
left out of the kernel until (very unlikely) proved necessary.
Thanks,
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists