On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:26:39 -0600 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:10:28 +0530 > > Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 12/06/2010 09:08 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > >> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:35:06 +0100 > >> > Bernhard Walle <bernhard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Zitat von Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm still not sure I like this patch however. It potentially means a > >> >>> lot of printk spam since these things have no ratelimiting. It also > >> >>> doesn't tell me anything about which server might be giving me grief. > >> >>> > >> >>> Maybe this should be turned into a cFYI? > >> >> > >> >> Well, if I see it in the kernel log, it doesn't matter if it's info or > >> >> something else. > >> >> > >> >>> The bottom line though is that running 32-bit applications that were > >> >>> built without -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 on a 64-bit kernel is a very bad > >> >>> idea. It would be nice to be able to alert users that things aren't > >> >>> working the way they expect, but I'm not sure this is the right place > >> >>> to do that. > >> >> > >> >> Well, but there *are* such application (in my case it was Softmaker Office > >> >> which is a proprietary word processor) and it's quite nice if you know > >> >> how you can workaround it when you encounter such a problem. That's all. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Sure...but this problem is not limited to CIFS. Many modern filesystems > >> > use 64-bit inodes. Running this application on XFS or NFS for instance > >> > is likely to give you the same trouble. You just hit it on CIFS because > >> > the server happened to give you a very large inode number. > >> > > >> > If we're going to add printk's for this situation, it probably ought to > >> > be in a more generic place. > >> > > >> > >> By generic place, did you mean at the VFS level? I think at VFS level, > >> there is little information about the Server or underlying fs and this > >> information doesn't seem too critical that VFS should warn/care much about. > >> > >> May be sticking to a cFYI along with Server detail is a good idea? > >> > > My poing was mainly that there's nothing special about CIFS in this > > regard, other than the fact that servers regularly send us inodes that > > are larger than 2^32. Why should we do this for cifs but not for nfs, > > xfs, ext4, etc? > > > > The filldir function gets a dentry as an argument, so it could > > reasonably generate a printk for this. I'm also not keen on > > the printk recommending noserverino for this. That has its own > > drawbacks. > > > > A cFYI for this sort of thing seems reasonable however. > > I agree that a cFYI is reasonable. The next obvious question is: do > we need to add code to generate unique 32 bit inode numbers > that don't collide (as IIRC Samba does by xor the high and low 32 > bits of the inode number) when the app can't support ino64 > I would prefer not to go back to noserverino since that has worse > drawbacks. > Right, the fact that noserverino works around this is really just due to an implementation detail of iunique(). That should probably be discouraged as a solution since it's not guaranteed to be a workaround in the future. If we did add such a switch, I'd suggest that we pattern it after what NFS did for this. They added an "enable_ino64" module parameter a couple of years ago that defaults to "true". -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
