From: Frank Filz Subject: Re: Problems with fh_fsid_type=3 exports (device minor id > 255) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:23:44 -0700 Message-ID: <1149175424.12795.57.camel@dyn9047022153> References: <1148669319.12795.44.camel@dyn9047022153> <1149115719.12795.49.camel@dyn9047022153> <1149117333.12795.53.camel@dyn9047022153> <17534.24605.250498.8288@cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: NFS List , Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1FloyT-0000N5-JV for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:20:37 -0700 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1FloyL-0005F0-54 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:20:34 -0700 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k51FKJwT025471 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 11:20:19 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k51FKI2R260716 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:20:19 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k51FKIcn006745 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0600 To: Neil Brown In-Reply-To: <17534.24605.250498.8288@cse.unsw.edu.au> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 13:33 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Wednesday May 31, ffilzlnx@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > Oops, I'm horribly confused... The above code actually is right, well > > :-) I'm glad you got your problem sorted! > > > mostly, I think it actually should be: > > > > > major = (dev & 0xff00) >> 8; > > > minor = (dev & 0xff) | ((dev >> 12) & 0xfff00); > > > > No, major is 12 bits, minor is 20 bits. So the original code is > correct. With a bit more sleep, I see that now. Thanks. What version of nfs-utils did this show up in? It looks like the situation is just a mis-match of nfs-utils and kernel. Thanks Frank Filz ------------------------------------------------------- All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs