Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] fat: allocate persistent inode numbers

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> I think we don't need this. Because FH and ino is not necessary to have
>> relation.
>>
>> Can we re-introduce ->encode_fh() handler, and export i_pos again?  With
>> this, I think we can get i_pos correctly. Otherwise, ino may not contain
>> all bits of i_pos.
> I already tried to fix this issue using encode_fh without stable ino before.
> But I reached conclusion that we should use stable inode number.
>
> e.g. If we rebuild inode number using i_pos of fh, inode number is
> changed by i_unique.
> And It is not match with inode number of FH on NFS client. So estale
> error will happen.

What is problem if i_ino + i_generation is not match? I think, even if
those didn't match, i_pos in FH should resolve issue, no?
-- 
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/