Hello Brian,
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:40:34AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Your impression is spot on. For the Linux implementation it was
> necessary to borrow a few inode numbers in order to construct the
> virtual .zfs directory. These number were chosen to be as large as
> possible, ab
Rune,
Your impression is spot on. For the Linux implementation it was
necessary to borrow a few inode numbers in order to construct the
virtual .zfs directory. These number were chosen to be as large as
possible, above 32-bits, to leave as much room for the real ZFS inodes
as possible.
This fun
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:18:11PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> I'm not sure, I don't see that restriction in the illumos zfs_ctldir.c.
> This is speculation, but it may be that on linux the inode number of stuff
> in .zfs/snapshot has the high bits set (above bit 32), and that doesn't
> work on
I'm not sure, I don't see that restriction in the illumos zfs_ctldir.c.
This is speculation, but it may be that on linux the inode number of stuff
in .zfs/snapshot has the high bits set (above bit 32), and that doesn't
work on 32-bit?
--matt
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:00 AM, wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
