Pending TrustedBSD stuff, etc.

Peter Jeremy peterjeremy at
Fri Jun 1 21:19:50 UTC 2007

On 2007-Jun-01 11:52:07 -0400, Garance A Drosehn <gad at> wrote:
>> - Peter Wemm has been talking about moving us to 64-bit inode numbers
> I suspect this should wait.  It would probably be better to group
> together all the other changes to filesystem stat-ish data that we've
> also been talking about for years, and do them all in the same major
> release.

Agreed.  Every time we change struct stat, we need to create legacy
syscalls or libc code so the fewer changes the better.

>  I don't know at what level you mean to move to 64-bit inode
> numbers, but if (for instance) you meant a 64-bit value for st_ino,

Since an inode number needs to fit into an ino_t, I would expect that
ino_t and hence st_ino would both become 64-bit.

> then I'd also like to see a 64-bit value for st_dev at the same time.

I can see the reason for having more than 2^32 inodes in a filesystem.
It's not as obvious why you would need a 64-bit dev_t.  You're never
going to have more than 2^32 devices attached to a system and I would
suggest that it's unlikely that you would have more than 255 active
drivers on one system.

What other struct stat changes are up for discussion?

Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list