From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [RFC] [patch 2/3] change attribute for ext4: ext4 specific code Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:03:07 -0500 Message-ID: <20061214160307.GE9079@thunk.org> References: <456DD75A.2010700@bull.net> <20061206214934.GA4551@schatzie.adilger.int> <45803906.5070307@bull.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:41331 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932860AbWLNQfS (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:35:18 -0500 To: Cordenner jean noel Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45803906.5070307@bull.net> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 06:31:50PM +0100, Cordenner jean noel wrote: There was discussion on yesterday's call about whether or not 32-bit was enough for NFSv4, or whether it also requried 64-bits of change notification in the RFC's. So one of the questions is whether this is something that would justify requiring 64-bits --- and if so, maybe we need to require that big inodes be used and store the entire 64-bit value beyond 128 bytes. This would mean that NFSv4 cache management couldn't be fully implemented without big inodes, or we'd have to make do by using the inode ctime as a partial substitute. What do you think? - Ted