Re: NFS Client patch

[Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu>]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 02:21:46AM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Craig Soules wrote:
> > Unfortunately to comply with NFSv2, the cookie cannot be larger than
> > 32-bits.  I believe this oversight has been correct in later NFS versions.
> > 
> > I do agree that forcing the underlying fs to "fix" itself for NFS is the
> > wrong solution. I can understand their desire to follow unix semantics
> > (although I don't entirely agree with them), so until I think up a more
> > palatable solution for the linux community, I will just keep my patches to
> > myself :)
> > 
> > Craig
> 
> 64 bits as in NFS v4 is still not large enough to hold a filename.
> For practical reasons, ReiserFS does what is needed to work with NFS,
> but what is needed bad design features, and any FS designer who
> doesn't feel the need to get along with NFS should not have acceptance
> of bad design be made a criterion for the acceptance of his patches.
> Just let NFS not work for Craig's FS, what is the problem with that?

Those 64-bits could be used for a simple hash to identify the filename.

In any case, what happens if the file was renamed or removed between the
2 readdir calls. A cookie identifying a name that was returned last, or
should be read next is just as volatile as a cookie that contains an
offset into the directory.

Jan