From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [RHEL5 PATCH 2/4] VFS: Make inode numbers 64-bits Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:32:57 +0100 Message-ID: <7619.1155630777@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <20060815013114.GS29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20060814211504.27190.10491.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060814211509.27190.51352.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Cc: David Howells , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:39813 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965237AbWHOIdJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:33:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20060815013114.GS29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> To: Al Viro Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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. David