Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:08:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-r574664 (2007-09-11) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0-r574664 Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5S08F2c003746 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:08:15 -0700 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1214611755-310702480000-NocioJ X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B0610296740 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.57]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id D7Hkn84drpeQrVgh for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:09:16 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEANexXkh5LFnm/2dsb2JhbACuPg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,718,1204464600"; d="scan'208";a="144844065" Received: from ppp121-44-89-230.lns10.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO disturbed) ([121.44.89.230]) by ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2008 09:39:14 +0930 Received: from dave by disturbed with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KCO0A-0004I1-1s; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:09:14 +1000 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:09:14 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option Subject: Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option Message-ID: <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com References: <20080627153928.GA31384@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080627153928.GA31384@lst.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Barracuda-Connect: ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net[203.16.214.57] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1214611756 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.1, rules version 3.1.54530 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/6021/Wed Feb 27 15:55:48 2008 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 16635 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: david@fromorbit.com Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:39:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Does anyone have objections to kill the ino64 mount option? It's purely > a debug tool to force inode numbers outside of the range representable > in 32bits and is quite invasive for something that could easily be > debugged by just having a large enough filesystem.. It's the "large enough fs" that is the problem. XFSQA uses small partitions for the most part, and this allows testing of 64 bit inode numbers with a standard qa config. That being said, I don't really if it goes or stays... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com