Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:22:44 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Increasing the size of dev_t and ino_t Message-ID: <92465.1015863764@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:14:38 EST." <p05101542b8b281472641@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <p05101542b8b281472641@[128.113.24.47]>, Garance A Drosihn writes: >At 10:47 AM +0100 3/11/02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>(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 :-) > >Given what we (RPI) have with our present AFS cell, I am not >sure how easy it will be to do this. If you follow my previous >description of AFS, you realize that RPI (by itself) has over >33,000 unique AFS volumes. We also have users who will touch >a large percentage of those volumes by typing in a single 'find' >command. If FreeBSD comes up with a unique random number for >each volume as it is referenced, and it has to cache all the >mappings between unique-numbers and AFS-volumes (so it can >tell when the same AFS volume is found at a different pathname >in AFS space), then that strikes me as an unwieldy situation. As I said: "Just because we can doesn't mean we will or should". >>And still, I see no pressure to increase the size of (u)dev_t >>on any platforms. > 3) if we have to make the incompatible change for a 64-bit > (u)ino_t, it would make some sense to also leave room > in the new 'struct stat' for 64-bit timestamps and > maybe even a 64-bit (u)dev_t, although I do agree that > the 64-bit (u)dev_t is the least important change to > consider... I don't mind reserving the space, and I may not even mind making udev_t larger, I just don't see a pressure to do so. >I am not completely certain that (u)dev_t needs to increase in >size, but I am pretty close to adamant that it must not decrease >in size. Don't worry, only people totally disconnected with reality would try that. -- 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?92465.1015863764>