> Why isn't this behavior simply the default? Without persisted inode numbers (UniqueId) it would cause problems with hardlinks (ie mounting with noserverino). We could try a trick of hashing them with the volume id if we could detect the transition to a different volume (as original thread was discussing) - fortunately in Linux you have to walk a path component by component so might be possible to spot these more easily. On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:19 PM Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/1/2023 8:49 PM, Steve French wrote: > > I would expect when the inode collision is noted that > > "cifs_autodisable_serverino()" will get called in the Linux client and > > you should see: "Autodisabling the user of server inode numbers on > > ..." > > "Consider mounting with noserverino to silence this message" > > Why isn't this behavior simply the default? It's going to be > data corruption (sev 1 issue) if the inode number is the same > for two different fileid's, so this seems entirely backwards. > > Also, the words "to silence this message" really don't convey > the severity of the situation. > > Tom. -- Thanks, Steve
