Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:39884 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750755Ab1JTSIU (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:08:20 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RGx2R-00080a-9B for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:08:19 +0200 Received: from ebox.rath.org ([173.255.235.238]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:08:19 +0200 Received: from Nikolaus by ebox.rath.org with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:08:19 +0200 To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org From: Nikolaus Rath Subject: Re: Does NFS4 need st_gen? Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:21:31 -0400 Message-ID: <877h3za89w.fsf@inspiron.ap.columbia.edu> References: <87ipnlcbg8.fsf@inspiron.ap.columbia.edu> <20111019171551.GA32028@fieldses.org> <87d3dsdcf4.fsf@inspiron.ap.columbia.edu> <20111020120207.GL5444@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "J. Bruce Fields" writes: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:11:27PM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >> "J. Bruce Fields" 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