Pending TrustedBSD stuff, etc.
peterjeremy at optushome.com.au
Fri Jun 1 21:19:50 UTC 2007
On 2007-Jun-01 11:52:07 -0400, Garance A Drosehn <gad at freebsd.org> 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
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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20070601/a25c7362/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current