From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [RHEL5 PATCH 2/4] VFS: Make inode numbers 64-bits Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:02:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20060815090243.GT29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20060815013114.GS29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20060814211504.27190.10491.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060814211509.27190.51352.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <7619.1155630777@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:8354 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965310AbWHOJCr (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:02:47 -0400 To: David Howells Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7619.1155630777@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 09:32:57AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Al Viro wrote: > > > NAK. There's no need to touch i_ino and a lot of reasons for not doing > > that. > > Like all those printks that write ambiguous messages because they can't report > the full inode number? I'm not so worried about those because they're for the > most part debugging messages, but still, they *can* report invalid information > because i_ino is not big enough in error and warning messages. In fs-independent code? How many of those do we actually have?