On Wed, 3 May 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 08:54:54AM +0200, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > ObNFS: weird as it may sound to you, I actually write stuff - not
> > "subcontract" to somebody else. So I'm afraid that I have slightly less
> > free time than you do. FWIC, in Reiserfs context nfsd is a non-issue.
> > Current kludge is not too lovely, but it's well-isolated and can be
> > replaced fast. So ->read_inode2() is ugly, but in my opinion it's not an
> > obstacle. If other problems will be resolved and by that time
> > ->fh_to_dentry() interface will not be in place - count on my vote for
> > temporary adding ->read_inode2().
>
> In the long run some generic support for 64bit inodes will be needed
> anyways -- other file systems depend on that too (e.g. XFS). So
> fh_to_dentry only saves you temporarily. I think adding read_inode2
> early is the best.
>
The problem is the read_inode2 callers need to know what to send, so we
need the opaque inode label idea, and an easy way to pass it
around. Or, we can just decide 64 bits is enough, and add a 64 bit
inode number into struct inode, keeping the 32 bit one for compatibility.
-chris
