On 12/10/2010 02:14 AM, Steve French 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. ïThe 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". What are the advantages we have by making it a module parameter as opposed to an mount option? XFS seems to have "inode64" mount option for quite sometime now, without much issues.. > 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) > > -- Suresh Jayaraman -- 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
