https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438434
--- Comment #19 from Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> --- I switched Baloo to just indexing filenames not contents cause it was so unbearable for me. There is a new discussion on how to deal with BTRFS/nfsd subvol dev/inode number issues and how to allow user space to compare two items for real. Starting here: A Third perspective on BTRFS nfsd subvol dev/inode number issues. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cajfpegub4obzcbxfqqc8j-zuisw+kayzljzaevm_cgznvpx...@mail.gmail.com/T/#m45d0820a1e660ce28c79992a829588de67fd38c3 One interim suggestion is for BTRFS to use hashed inode numbers that are unique in most cases. However ultimately Neil Brown suggests to tell user space developers to use a new way to compare whether items are the same: "The "obvious" choice for a replacement is the file handle provided by name_to_handle_at() (falling back to st_ino if name_to_handle_at isn't supported by the filesystem). This returns an extensible opaque byte-array. It is *already* more reliable than st_ino. Comparing st_ino is only a reliable way to check if two files are the same if you have both of them open. If you don't, then one of the files might have been deleted and the inode number reused for the other. A filehandle contains a generation number which protects against this. So I think we need to strongly encourage user-space to start using name_to_handle_at() whenever there is a need to test if two things are the same." There is a huge discussion following this. I do not have the time to review it right now, however there might be something in it in order to make Baloo work for these use cases. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
