From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] i_version update - ext4 part Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 22:25:14 -0400 Message-ID: <1180578314.6696.24.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <46570E16.5040006@bull.net> <1180467854.4204.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070529225817.GE5181@schatzie.adilger.int> <1180568925.3794.44.camel@dyn9047017103.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andreas Dilger , jean-noel.cordenner@bull.net, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: cmm@us.ibm.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1180568925.3794.44.camel@dyn9047017103.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 16:48 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:58 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > I don't know what the NFS requirements for the version are. There may > > also be some complaints from others if the i_version is 64 bits because > > this contributes to generic inode growth and isn't used for other > > filesystems. > > > That should benefit for other filesystems, as I thought this NFS > requirements apply to all filesystems. Right. The point here is that the NFS protocol needs to impose certain requirements on _all_ filesystems that want to be supported, and so it is in the interest of everyone to have a generic update mechanism available in the VFS in order to avoid code (and bug) replication. Now if Lustre doesn't care about NFS compatibility, then I suppose it would be fairly easy to engineer the i_version update interface to allow them to use that field in whatever way suits them best. Trond