[Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies

[Anand Avati]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Zach Brown <zab at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:07:44AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > 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?
>
> They're testing a work-around:
>
>   http://review.gluster.org/#change,4711
>
> I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or
> not.
>

Jeff reported that the approach did not work in his testing. I haven't had
a chance to look into the failure yet. Independent of the fix, it would
certainly be good have the ioctl() support - Samba could use it too, if it
wanted.

Avati
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20130328/97dbd566/attachment-0001.html>