[PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem

[Scott Long]

Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 1:05 AM -0400 6/6/05, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Scott Long wrote:
>>
>>> It's a huge win for CPU overhead in the filesystem, especially
>>> when we start talking about increasing the size of m_links
>>> field and possibly going 64-bit inode numbers.
>>
>>
>> Talking about going to 64-bit inode numbers, how would we deal
>> with the change in stat(2)?
> 
> 
> By making some sort of incompatible change to stat(2).  This has
> been discussed from time-to-time.  It's another change that I
> would have liked to have seen (at least for the stat routines)
> in 6.0, but right now I suspect it will not happen until 7.0.
> 

We can't go making incremental incompatibilities to the filesystem
without a good deal of planning.  This is the type of thing that
would go into a 'UFS3'.  I have some long-term plans here, but I
need to get the initial proof-of-concept journalling working before
I start to seriously consider what else would be in UFS3.

Scott