ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow?

[Eric van Gyzen]

On 12/11/19 3:55 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:26:41AM -0600, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>> Since ino64 went in, Coverity complains that the two "ino >= foo"
>> comparisons in ffs_fhtovp() compare a 64-bit value to a 32-bit.  Is this
>> a problem in practice?
> 
> I do not think that this a problem, and Coverity could be a bit smarter
> there.
> 
> The ino variable is 64bit, but why is it worrysome to compare it with a
> 32 bit value ?   We want to limit the value to the max possible inode
> number but still keep it type-correct.

I incorrectly thought that UFS supported 64-bit inodes.  Thanks for 
correcting me, Kostik.

Eric