On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Zach Brown <z...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:07:44AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > We don't have reached a conclusion so far, do we? What about the > > > > ioctl approach, but a bit differently? Would it work to specify the > > > > allowed upper bits for ext4 (for example 16 additional bit) and the > > > > remaining part for gluster? One of the mails had the calculation > > > > formula: > > > > > > I did throw together an ioctl patch last week, but I think Anand has a > new > > > approach he's trying out which won't require ext4 code changes. I'll > let > > > him reply when he has a moment. :) > > > > Any update about whether Gluster can address this without needing the > > ioctl patch? Or should we push the ioctl patch into ext4 for the next > > merge window? > > They're testing a work-around: > > http://review.gluster.org/#change,4711 > > I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or > not. > Jeff reported that the approach did not work in his testing. I haven't had a chance to look into the failure yet. Independent of the fix, it would certainly be good have the ioctl() support - Samba could use it too, if it wanted. Avati
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel