On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 11:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:43:04 +0200
Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:00:50 -0400Wouldn't a mount option be better?
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 08:52 +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote:That would be perfect. It can even be in non-legacy mode by default,
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:41:16 -0400How about a boot/module parameter to turn it on or off?
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We also have the 64-bit inode support from RedHat/Peter Staubach.As has been pointed[1] out[2], this will cause regressions for
non-LFS applications (of which there are still lots and lots). This
change should be in feature-removal (the "feature" being removed is
legacy support for non-LFS applications using NFS servers that make
full use of the protocol) and preferably accompanied with
appropriate user space changes (e.g. compatibility option in glibc).
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241348
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=118701088726477&w=2
Rgds
just as long as you can go back to the old behaviour when/if you run
into a non-LFS application.
I suppose that might be OK if you know that the 32-bit legacy
applications will only touch one or two servers, but that sounds like a
niche thing.
On the downside, forcing all those people who have portable 64-bit aware
applications to upgrade their version of mount just in order to have
stat64() work correctly seems unnecessarily complicated. I'd prefer not
to have to do that unless someone comes up with a good reason why we
must.