Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 25 Nov 2002 01:08:30 -0800 (PST)
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To:        Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@tislabs.com>, re@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format 
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211250107060.34466-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <200211250619.gAP6J059068226@beastie.mckusick.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:

> Some of these fields could usefully be made unsigned others not
> (for example fs_pendingblocks and fs_pendinginodes). So just
> going through and making everything unsigned is not the right
> approach. I will make a pass through and consider changing some
> of these fields once the tree opens back up, but not at this
> point in time when we are trying to keep changes to a minimum
> and do not have time for extensive testing.
> 
> 	Kirk McKusick

I'm not in a hurry.. It's just something that I thought should be
considered..... "eventually".

BTW how can fs_pendingblocks and fs_pendinginodes be -ve?




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211250107060.34466-100000>