From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] handling 64bit values for st_ino] Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:57:21 -0500 Message-ID: <437343B1.5000809@redhat.com> References: <20051110003024.GD7992@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Al Viro In-Reply-To: <20051110003024.GD7992@ftp.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Al Viro wrote: >[My apologies, forgot to Cc the first half...] > >Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:27:29 +0000 >From: Al Viro >To: Linus Torvalds >Subject: [PATCH 1/2] handling 64bit values for st_ino >User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i > > We certainly do not want 64bit kernel ino_t, since that would >screw icache lookups for no good reason; fs with 64bit keys used to >identify inodes can just use iget5(). > > Has this potential degradation been measured? This is a lot of extra complexity which needs to justified by the resulting performance. > 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. Thanx... ps