Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11195 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751259Ab3C1RwQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:52:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:52:05 -0700 From: Zach Brown To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: Eric Sandeen , Bernd Schubert , Anand Avati , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, gluster-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies Message-ID: <20130328175205.GD16651@lenny.home.zabbo.net> References: <20130213222052.GD5938@thunk.org> <20130213224141.GU14195@fieldses.org> <20130213224720.GE5938@thunk.org> <20130213230511.GW14195@fieldses.org> <20130213234430.GF5938@thunk.org> <5151BD5F.30607@itwm.fraunhofer.de> <5151C33E.2070008@redhat.com> <20130328140744.GA4989@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130328140744.GA4989@thunk.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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