Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*rfc\:\s+kill\s+ino64\s+mount\s+option\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*rfc\:\s+kill\s+ino64\s+mount\s+option\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

1. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Christoph Litauer <litauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:07:00 +0200; Mark Goodwin schrieb: Dave Chinner wrote: 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 fo; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00001.html (9,832 bytes)
2. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:12:43 +1000; Christoph Litauer wrote: Mark Goodwin schrieb: .. We have a design proposal known as "inode32+" that essentially removes the direct mapping between inode number and disk offset. This will provide all; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00008.html (9,156 bytes)
3. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Christoph Litauer <litauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:45:07 +0200; Mark Goodwin schrieb: Christoph Litauer wrote: Mark Goodwin schrieb: .. We have a design proposal known as "inode32+" that essentially removes the direct mapping between inode number and disk offset.; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00009.html (9,836 bytes)
4. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:07:00 +0200; Mark Goodwin schrieb: Dave Chinner wrote: 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 fo; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00624.html (9,832 bytes)
5. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:12:43 +1000; Christoph Litauer wrote: Mark Goodwin schrieb: .. We have a design proposal known as "inode32+" that essentially removes the direct mapping between inode number and disk offset. This will provide all; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00631.html (9,156 bytes)
6. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:45:07 +0200; Mark Goodwin schrieb: Christoph Litauer wrote: Mark Goodwin schrieb: .. We have a design proposal known as "inode32+" that essentially removes the direct mapping between inode number and disk offset.; /archives/xfs/2008-07/msg00632.html (9,836 bytes)
7. rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:39:28 +0200; 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; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00418.html (7,408 bytes)
8. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:09:14 +1000; 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 real; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00426.html (8,653 bytes)
9. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:46:31 +1000; Dave Chinner wrote: 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 outs; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00427.html (9,950 bytes)
10. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:31:39 -0500; You're confusing inode64, which allows inodes > 32 bits, with ino64, which forces all inodes > 32 bits. The latter debugging option is what Christoph wants to remove... Christoph, the "large enough f; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00428.html (9,696 bytes)
11. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:23:03 +0200; Well, it allows showing 64bit inode numbers to userspace. All XFS internal codepathes are still using the smaller inode numbers and we only add a fixed offset to them just before the inode number is; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00429.html (8,620 bytes)
12. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:40 +0200; Currently it's implemented by adding m_inoadd surrounded by an xfs_ino_t xfs_user_ino(struct xfs_mount *mp, xfs_ino_t ino); but I don't really see the point as the option seems quite useless. But if; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00430.html (8,733 bytes)
13. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:52:08 -0500; Well, to be honest i've never even enabled it :) how much does xfsqa use it? I guess I don't really care if it goes. -Eric; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00432.html (9,083 bytes)
14. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:13:34 +1000; I'd vote for removing it - I've used it in the past, and it didn't do what I wanted (its not really useful for XFS testing) and the confusion it causes with inode64 is not worth it. cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00437.html (9,180 bytes)
15. rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:39:28 +0200; 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; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00878.html (7,408 bytes)
16. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:09:14 +1000; 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 real; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00886.html (8,653 bytes)
17. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:46:31 +1000; Dave Chinner wrote: 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 outs; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00887.html (9,950 bytes)
18. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:31:39 -0500; You're confusing inode64, which allows inodes > 32 bits, with ino64, which forces all inodes > 32 bits. The latter debugging option is what Christoph wants to remove... Christoph, the "large enough f; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00888.html (9,696 bytes)
19. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:23:03 +0200; Well, it allows showing 64bit inode numbers to userspace. All XFS internal codepathes are still using the smaller inode numbers and we only add a fixed offset to them just before the inode number is; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00889.html (8,620 bytes)
20. Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:40 +0200; Currently it's implemented by adding m_inoadd surrounded by an xfs_ino_t xfs_user_ino(struct xfs_mount *mp, xfs_ino_t ino); but I don't really see the point as the option seems quite useless. But if; /archives/xfs/2008-06/msg00890.html (8,733 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]