From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Scott Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:52:56 +0000 Subject: Re: IA64 ino_t incorrectly sized? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:26:25AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>> On 17 Sep 2003 10:33:47 -0400, Jes Sorensen said: > > >>>>> "Nathan" = Nathan Scott writes: > Nathan> Does anyone know why the IA64 platform-specific ino_t > Nathan> definition is an int and not a long? Patch below fixes this > Nathan> problem for me but I wonder if there will be side-effects I > Nathan> haven't considered (i.e. was there a reason for making this > Nathan> 32 bits originally?). If not, could the IA64 maintainers > Nathan> push this patch around to the official kernel trees for me? > Nathan> (pretty please) > > Jes> Hi Nathan, > > Jes> I am actually surprised it's still a 32 bit int in the > Jes> kernel. I deliberately used 64 bit types in glibc so it could > Jes> be done right. Must have slipped on fixing the kernel for this > Jes> one. > > Jes> David? > > Extending ino_t to 64 bits came up last October [1]. AFAIK, nobody > bothered to investigate & send a patch, so things didn't change since > then. > > --david > > [1] http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/linux-ia64/0210/3952.html > I notice a big batch of IA64 changes has just gone into 2.6-test6, but this change seems to be missing. Is it in someones queue for next time or do I need to describe the problem more clearly? The investigation and the patch I sent are available here[2]. cheers. -- Nathan [2] http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/linux-ia64/0309/6681.html