On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 09:10:47AM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I suggest: > > > > > > > > > > STATX_ATTR_INUM_NOT_UNIQUE - it is possible that two files have the > > > > > same inode number > > > > This is just ugly with questionable value. A constant reminder of how > > broken this is. Exposing the subvolume id also makes this somewhat redundant. > > There is a upcoming potential problem where even the 64-bit field I placed in > statx() may be insufficient. The Auristor AFS server, for example, has a > 96-bit vnode ID, but I can't properly represent this in stx_ino. Currently, I Is that vnode ID akin to a volume? Because if so you could just piggy-back on a subvolume id field in statx() and expose it there. > just truncate the value to fit and hope that the discarded part will be all > zero, but that's not really a good thing to do - especially when stx_ino is > used programmatically to check for hardlinks. > > Would it be better to add an 'stx_ino_2' field and corresponding flag? Would this be meaningfully different from using a file handle?
