Namjae Jeon <[email protected]> writes: >> I think we don't need this. Because FH and ino is not necessary to have >> relation. >> >> Can we re-introduce ->encode_fh() handler, and export i_pos again? With >> this, I think we can get i_pos correctly. Otherwise, ino may not contain >> all bits of i_pos. > I already tried to fix this issue using encode_fh without stable ino before. > But I reached conclusion that we should use stable inode number. > > e.g. If we rebuild inode number using i_pos of fh, inode number is > changed by i_unique. > And It is not match with inode number of FH on NFS client. So estale > error will happen.
What is problem if i_ino + i_generation is not match? I think, even if those didn't match, i_pos in FH should resolve issue, no? -- OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
