Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:37:04 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/30] fs: inode->i_version rework and optimization
Message-ID: <20170321173704.GA17872@fieldses.org>
References: <1482339827-7882-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
 <20161222084549.GA8833@infradead.org>
 <1482417724.3924.39.camel@redhat.com>
 <20170320214327.GA5098@fieldses.org>
 <20170321134500.GA1318@infradead.org>
 <20170321163011.GA16666@fieldses.org>
 <1490117004.2542.1.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <1490117004.2542.1.camel@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 12:30 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > 	- NFS doesn't actually require that it increases, but I think it
> > 	  should.  I assume 64 bits means we don't need a discussion of
> > 	  wraparound.
> 
> I thought NFS spec required that you be able to recognize old change
> attributes so that they can be discarded. I could be wrong here though.
> I'd have to go back and look through the spec to be sure.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7862#section-10

--b.