From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:07:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20130328140744.GA4989@thunk.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Bernd Schubert , Anand Avati , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, gluster-devel@nongnu.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:56773 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756495Ab3C1Ozq (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:55:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5151C33E.2070008@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? Thanks, - Ted