On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 10:01:32PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I don't think an actual scheme to deal with the > inode numbers at the VFS level makes sense, what I meant was only to do > a vfs-level mount option (numerical) instead of a per-filesystem one. Different fileystems might want different defaults - XFS (and every other filesystem) will still want 32 bit inodes by default right now, while NFS will probably want 64 bit inodes. That might complicate a vfs-level mount option, especially given that we don't want the XFS mount options to change. > Al commented he doesn't like that. He also think we should give the > 64bit inode numbers a try, so I'd say: > > o add an inode32 option for nfs that mirrors the XFS option XFS uses an "inode64" option to turn on 64 bit inodes. If that is not specified it uses 32 bit inodes - there is no "inode32" option in XFS. > o turn it off by default in -mm and see what goes boom Will we even see the conditions for the NFS client to go boom in the environments -mm kernels are typically run? i.e. does someone have a test case that reliably triggers problems? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - 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
