On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:07:44AM -0400, 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? They're testing a work-around: http://review.gluster.org/#change,4711 I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or not. - z -- 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
