| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: inode64 question |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:20:19 +1000 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <48DCF1FE.3080305@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <alpine.DEB.1.10.0809251943420.5846@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080926063050.GA20516@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48DCF1FE.3080305@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 09:30:22AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 07:44:33PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: > >> If I mount the fs with -o inode64, can I mount it again later say under > >> knoppix 32bit without any options, will the FS still mount? The 64-bit > >> rescue cd/dvds--I have had problems with to say the least. > > > > Not yet. I'll hopefully get a patch for it into 2.6.28. > > Actually it *will* at least mount, won't it? But that's dangerous. I > don't think xfs sets any kind of superblock flag saying "I contain > inodes past 2^32, don't mount on 32-bit boxes" does it? Right. It will mount, but what happens with inodes past 2^32 is undefined. You might be lucky - you might not.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH v2] Use atomic_t and wait_event to track dquot pincount, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Speed of rm compared to reiserfs (slow) - and switching logdevices, Török Edwin |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: inode64 question, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH][DOC] xfs_stats.pl: xs_log_blocks counts in basic blocks, KELEMEN Peter |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |