On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:57:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mateusz Guzik: > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:40:35PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Mateusz Guzik: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 08:55:46AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> >> It was pointed out to me that inode numbers on Linux are no longer > >> >> expected to be unique per file system, even for local file systems. > >> > > >> > I don't know if I'm parsing this correctly. > >> > > >> > Are you claiming on-disk inode numbers are not guaranteed unique per > >> > filesystem? It sounds like utter breakage, with capital 'f'. > >> > >> Yes, POSIX semantics and traditional Linux semantics for POSIX-like > >> local file systems are different. > > > > Can you link me some threads about this? > > Sorry, it was an internal thread. It's supposed to be common knowledge > among Linux file system developers. btrfs has been dealing with this issue since snapshots/subvols were first introduced some 15-odd years ago. This isn't a new problem... https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20231025210654.GA2892534@perftesting/ > Aleksa referenced LSF/MM > discussions. I also referenced those discussions and the -fsdevel discussions that have been happening for quite some time. I'll reference some of them here again, because they are all out in the open.... https://lwn.net/Articles/975444/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/?q=st_vol https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20231211233231.oiazgkqs7yahruuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
