On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 07:36 +0800, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jan 19, 2009 13:28 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > ext[234] return a portion of the uuid in f_fsid. There is a theoretical > > chance of those values being non-unique. Since there doesn't appear to > > be any case for the fsid to be persistent between boots, I guess > > huge_encode_dev() is probably a better choice. In practice it probably > > makes no difference. > > I'm not sure what you mean about "no case for fsid to be persistent"? > The whole point of fsid (for NFS) is that this identifies the filesystem > over reboot, even if the block device ID changes, or if the filesystem > doesn't have a block device at all (e.g. cluster filesystem). I guess that just demonstrates how little I know about what the fsid is about. Would it be preferable for file systems that have a uuid to use that instead? Of course anything is an improvement over zeroes. Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
