Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:07:44AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > We don't have reached a conclusion so far, do we? What about the
> > > ioctl approach, but a bit differently? Would it work to specify the
> > > allowed upper bits for ext4 (for example 16 additional bit) and the
> > > remaining part for gluster? One of the mails had the calculation
> > > formula:
> > 
> > I did throw together an ioctl patch last week, but I think Anand has a new
> > approach he's trying out which won't require ext4 code changes.  I'll let
> > him reply when he has a moment.  :)
> 
> Any update about whether Gluster can address this without needing the
> ioctl patch?  Or should we push the ioctl patch into ext4 for the next
> merge window?

They're testing a work-around:

  http://review.gluster.org/#change,4711

I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or
not.

- z
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux