On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:52:13PM +0100, hch wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 05:45:26PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > We're using statfs64.fs_fsid for this; I believe that's both stable > > across reboots and distinguishes between subvolumes, so that's OK. > > It's a field that doesn't have any useful specification and basically > contains random garbage that a filesystem put into it. Using it is a > very bad idea. I meant the above statement to apply only to btrfs; and nfs-utils is using fs_fsid only in the case where the filesystem type is "btrfs". So I believe the current code does work. But I agree that constructing filehandles differently based on a strcmp() of the filesystem type is not a sustainable design, to say the least. --b. -- 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
