From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:51:09 +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 Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:52:56 +1000, Nathan Scott said: >> 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 Nathan> I notice a big batch of IA64 changes has just gone into Nathan> 2.6-test6, but this change seems to be missing. Is it in Nathan> someones queue for next time or do I need to describe the Nathan> problem more clearly? Nathan> The investigation and the patch I sent are available Nathan> here[2]. Nathan> cheers. Nathan> -- Nathan Nathan> [2] http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/linux-ia64/0309/6681.html The mail you're referring to talks about getdents64() only. What I didn't see is an argument why this is the _only_ user visible interface that might be affected. Are there any other interfaces (syscalls, /proc/whatever, etc.) that may directly or indirectly be affected? If not and if the change has been run through a reasonable test-suite (LTP?) without ill effects, I'm certainly OK with the change. --david PS: It would help to get this resolved quickly, e.g., before test8.