Hey Carlos, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 03:40:33PM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:15:18PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > > On 10/18/12 12:04, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > >On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:05:32AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > > >>On 10/18/12 11:00, Dave Howorth wrote: > > >>>Mark Tinguely wrote: > > >>>>Would "Indicates that XFS is allowed to create inodes at locations up to > > >>>>32 bits of significance .." > > >>> > > >>>I prefer the original wording. Your suggestion says something about what > > >>>XFS can do, but nothing about what it is not allowed to do, which is > > >>>rather more important. > > >>> > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>xfs mailing list > > >>>xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > > >>>http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > > >> > > >>I see your point. Sounds good to me. > > >> > > >>--Mark. > > >> > > >This means no change is needed? > > > > > > > I am okay with what is written about creating inodes. > > > > On a separate question, should something be mentioned that inode32 > > mode can still read/write/unlink any inode, even those number > > greater than 32 bit, or will that confuse the inode creation point? > > > I thought about this when modifying the documentation, but, to be honest I was > wondering if this might not cause more confusion than expected. > > For example, > afaik, one of the principal reasons we still keep an inode32 allocator is due > applications which cannot handle 64bit inodes. So, I suppose that users which > will use inode32 are those who really needs 32bit inodes for this kind of > 'problem'. > > Saying that inode32 mode can still read 64bit inodes might (IMHO) lead users, > *think* they won't have problems with larger inodes just by using inode32 mode, > when, AFAICT, they'll have the same problems with their applications and larger > inode numbers if they have any inode allocated beyong 32bit limit. even using > inode32 mode. > > So, I believe that, not saying it will "force" users who need 32bit inodes to > use inode32 since its first inode allocation, instead of think they'll fix their > problems only switching to inode32 mode after they already had lots of 64bit > inodes allocated. > > > > Hopefully I didn't create more confusion around it :-) I pulled in the original version of this on Nov 2. That version looked fine to me. ;) Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
