Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:43:36 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] handling 64bit values for st_ino]
Message-ID: <20051110134336.GE7992@ftp.linux.org.uk>
References: <20051110003024.GD7992@ftp.linux.org.uk> <437343B1.5000809@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <437343B1.5000809@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1136
Lines: 25

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:57:21AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> 
> Has this potential degradation been measured?  This is a lot of extra
> complexity which needs to justified by the resulting performance.

What extra complexity?
 
> >	Fix is pretty cheap and consists of two parts:
> >1) widen struct kstat ->ino to u64, add a macro (check_inumber()) to
> >be used in callers of ->getattr() that want to store ->ino in possibly
> >narrower fields and care about overflows (stuff like sys_old_stat() with
> >its 16bit st_ino clearly doesn't ;-)

> It seems to me that a type with a name which better matches the intended
> semantics would be a better choice than u64.  Even something like ino64_t
> would help file systems maintainers to correctly implement the appropriate
> support.

Why the hell would fs maintainers needs to touch their code at all?
Have you actually read that patches?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/