Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:57:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long <scottl@pooker.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 Subject: Re: [PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem Message-ID: <20050606095117.Q52957@pooker.samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <86fyvvqzil.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-123071739-1118073379=:52957 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, [iso-8859-1] Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> writes: >> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: >>> This is primarily an API issue, not a filesystem layout issue. We >>> already have at least one filesystem with 64-bit inodes (msdosfs). >> What do you mean it's not a layout issue? We can't make incompatible >> layout changes whever we feel like it, or else transportability of >> filesystems is completely lost and everyone who wants to boot more >> than just the Last And Greatest on their system winds up with >> unnessary pain. > > 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. > > The ironic thing is that we already have a 64-bit stat(2)... for > Linux ABI compatibility. > 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=20 anything else that should be bumped along with it? Scott --0-123071739-1118073379=:52957--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050606095117.Q52957>