[PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem

[Don Lewis]

On  6 Jun, Scott Long wrote:
> 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.

cough ... larger cylinder groups ... cough