On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > We don't have reached a conclusion so far, do we? What about the > > ioctl approach, but a bit differently? Would it work to specify the > > allowed upper bits for ext4 (for example 16 additional bit) and the > > remaining part for gluster? One of the mails had the calculation > > formula: > > I did throw together an ioctl patch last week, but I think Anand has a new > approach he's trying out which won't require ext4 code changes. I'll let > him reply when he has a moment. :) Any update about whether Gluster can address this without needing the ioctl patch? Or should we push the ioctl patch into ext4 for the next merge window? Thanks, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
