From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] handling 64bit values for st_ino] Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:43:36 +0000 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 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Peter Staubach Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <437343B1.5000809@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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?