On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:16:45AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfie...@fieldses.org> writes: > > >> > There is some unclear thing. > >> > When I see first mail, I think maybe you don't want to use i_pos for > >> > inode->ino. > >> > FAT allocate inode->ino from i_unique on server side and If NFS client > >> > use i_pos for inode->ino in fat_get_attr, inode numbers on each > >> > client/server will still be mismatched. > >> > > >> > Would you plz give me hint ? > >> > >> ->i_ino is long. It can't hold i_pos fully on 32bit arch, so we can't > >> use ->i_no to store i_pos, and changing ->i_ino is unnecessary. If > >> getattr() returned i_pos as ino, nobody see ->i_ino anymore except > >> internal of kernel. > > > > The NFS server must always return the same inode number for the same > > filehandle. To do otherwise is a bug. > > > >> Furthermore I think there is no issue even if server and client didn't > >> have same ino. Because client just uses FH (nfs4 seems to be using > >> stat.ino though). > > > > The client may expose a different inode number to userspace, but it's > > probably the server-provided inode number that it's checking. > > > > (And even if the Linux client didn't currently happen to do that check, > > this would still be a bug.) > > In this context, inode number != inode->i_ino, right? It should be > kstat.ino, and in FAT case, it will return i_pos always. Otherwise 64bit > inode number would not work. > > So, I think we are doing right thing for now.
Oh, OK. On a quick check, yes, the numbers the server returns to clients are taken from either kstat.ino or the ino argument of the filldir function. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/