"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:11:27PM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:17:43AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> >> Does NFS4 still depend on inode generation numbers? I understand that >> >> earlier NFS versions used file handles based on inode and generation >> >> number, but it seems to me that this shouldn't be required anymore with >> >> the (stateful) NFS4. >> > >> > Yes, it's true that NFSv4 has open and close operations, but filehandles >> > are still used a great deal outside of that, and clients are still >> > allowed to assume that the same filehandle always refers to the same >> > object. >> > >> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt, section 4.2.1: >> > >> > "If two filehandles from the same server are equal, they MUST >> > refer to the same file." >> >> Duh - that's a disappointment. Thanks for the pointer! > > Just curious--why do you care? I'm working on a FUSE file system that stores file system metadata in an SQL database (http://code.google.com/p/s3ql/). Not having to keep track of inode generation numbers would keep the code much simpler, because I want to delete inode-rows from the SQL table when the last reference to the inode is deleted (so I can't keep track of the generation no). Now I'll either have to make inodes unique (and run into trouble after 2^32 inodes have been used), or keep with the current scheme of randomizing new inodes (which keeps the probability of problems low enough but is ugly). Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
