On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:44:27 -0600 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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". > > makes me uncomfortable to break ino64 for all mounts - when we > may have one application on one mount that needs it (might be > better to make a mount related) > It's a workaround for broken applications. Some discomfort is reasonable, as long as the default is that ino64 is enabled. -- 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
