On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Zach Brown <zab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They're testing a work-around: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?
http://review.gluster.org/#change,4711
I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or
not.
Jeff reported that the approach did not work in his testing. I haven't had a chance to look into the failure yet. Independent of the fix, it would certainly be good have the ioctl() support - Samba could use it too, if it wanted.
Avati
