Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] fat: allocate persistent inode numbers

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> In this long discusstion about the FAT acceptance over NFS, our belief
> is still that the objective should be to reduce errors as much as
> possible and then if there are certain scenarios - at least that could
> be highlighted as a limitation in Documentation instead of completely
> discarding the usage of FAT over NFS.  So how about puttting rename
> scenario as a limitation ? In ideal scenario how many times this is
> going to happen ?

My understanding of your patches is to introduce the silent corruption
bug by getting wrong location via ino on some cases, instead of
ESTALE. And make surprise to userland by change ino.

Why is it safe to change ino? If you are saying to remove the changing
ino on rename, how handle the case of collision?
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/