>From my reading of the code it seems that fsid is composed of device's >minor/major and export point's inode ino. > >I propose to replace (if supported by fs) device's minor/major by >some unique number returned by fs itself. >Should be no worse than what we have now. That's for a device-based filesystem. But isn't your proposal primarily about non-device-based filesystems, and replacing a user-supplied value with this filesystem identifier? It isn't so clear that that can't make things worse. But I don't actually remember the specific cases in which the fsid was considered insufficient; only that someone (probably Neil) did find that it was. (Before Linux had export IDs, you simply couldn't export a non-device-based filesystem at all, so we had to make a fake device on which the filesystem could "reside." The user managed the device number of that device as the filesystem ID). -- Bryan Henderson IBM Almaden Research Center San Jose CA Filesystems - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
