Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:12:06 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@freebsd.org>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, current@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org, Scott Long <scottl@pooker.samsco.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem Message-ID: <42A475D6.4020906@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <863brvqxow.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <82ACAD58-B179-44E2-852F-60F25C0BBBC1@FreeBSD.org> <20050606033145.GA80739@www.portaone.com> <42A3D6CF.2000504@samsco.org> <0A6C1F19-A734-4EC8-BE97-2D000D189968@FreeBSD.org> <p06210238bec98dba5697@[128.113.24.47]> <42A453B5.3020006@samsco.org> <86oeaj1r2x.fsf@xps.des.no> <42A463EF.5060401@samsco.org> <86fyvvqzil.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050606095117.Q52957@pooker.samsco.org> <863brvqxow.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Scott Long <scottl@pooker.samsco.org> writes: > >>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, [iso-8859-1] Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >> >>>Changing the stat(2) API to support 64-bit inodes does not require us >>>to simultaneously change the on-disk layout of every filesystem we >>>support to use 64-bit inodes. However, if we want to fully support >>>filesystems with 64-bit inodes (such as FAT32, which currently uses a >>>convoluted hack to map the 64-bit offset of a directory entry into a >>>32-bit inode), we need to change the API. >> >>Ah, I see your point. Well, it's not too late to address this for 6.0, >>and it might be a really good idea to think about it now. Is there >>anything else that should be bumped along with it? > > > Not that I know of. > > I believe the best way to do this is the way Linux did it: introduce > new *stat64() syscalls and keep the old ones around. #define magic in > <sys/stat.h> will take care of making *stat64() look like *stat(). > > DES So one of the advantages that we have with the 5.x -> 6.0 migration right now is that it's still possible to run a 5.x userland with a 6.x kernel without much problem. Changing fundamental syscalls and structures would defeat this and make life much harder for people that want to sell 6.0 as a painless migration. On the surface I like your idea of stat64 (regardless of politics of having 64-bit specific in the API names), but I'd like to think on it a bit. In the mean time I'm off to listen to Steve profess his love to Intel ;-) Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42A475D6.4020906>