Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:47:58 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de> Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Increasing the size of dev_t and ino_t Message-ID: <17497.1015840078@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:34:55 %2B0100." <20020311102511.M516-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20020311102511.M516-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de>, Harti Brandt write s: >There is an explicit requirement in POSIX: it requires a given >st_ino/st_dev pair to uniqely identify a file. I take this to mean: if two >files have the same st_ino/st_dev pair, they are the same file. If I mount >the same volume in different places in the tree any file on that volume >must have the same st_ino/st_dev pair in both mount points. As worded by >POSIX the st_ino/st_dev pairs are not required to be persistant through >reboots. It can, however, be hard to implement persistant file handles for >NFS based on non-persistant st_info/st_dev pairs. (Sorry, I confused st_dev and st_rdev earlier). Ok, I think we are on the same page now. I don't think any of the stuff headed for -current would give you trouble in this respect. Just because we _can_ assign a random st_dev doesn't mean we will shoot ourselves in the foot by doing so :-) And still, I see no pressure to increase the size of (u)dev_t on any platforms. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17497.1015840078>