On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.. I prefer mount option, but with the default to support 64 bit inode numbers. >> 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 > -- Thanks, Steve -- 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
