On 3/28/13 9:07 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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? I went ahead & sent the ioctl patches to the ext4 list; they are lightly tested, and not tested at all w/ gluster AFAIK. Wanted to get them out just in case we decide we want them. Thanks, -Eric > 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 > -- 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
