[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220912135131.GC9304@fieldses.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:51:31 -0400
From: bfields@...ldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, djwong@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com,
trondmy@...merspace.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
zohar@...ux.ibm.com, xiubli@...hat.com, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
lczerner@...hat.com, brauner@...nel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new
STATX_INO_VERSION field
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:55:04AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Because of the "seen" flag, we have a 63 bit counter to play with. Could
> we use a similar scheme to the one we use to handle when "jiffies"
> wraps? Assume that we'd never compare two values that were more than
> 2^62 apart? We could add i_version_before/i_version_after macros to make
> it simple to handle this.
As far as I recall the protocol just assumes it can never wrap. I guess
you could add a new change_attr_type that works the way you describe.
But without some new protocol clients aren't going to know what to do
with a change attribute that wraps.
I think this just needs to be designed so that wrapping is impossible in
any realistic scenario. I feel like that's doable?
If we feel we have to catch that case, the only 100% correct behavior
would probably be to make the filesystem readonly.
--b.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists