Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Should we make inode->i_ino a u64?

["Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 08:38:56AM +0200, Kolbjørn Barmen wrote:
> 
> This tells me that it is time for "the 32-bit community" (wtf) to either
> look elsewhere, or start thinking of forking the Linux kernel perhaps
> sooner rather than later, so we don't bother "the 64-bit community" so
> much.

My point was that having people whine about a decision isn't a
particularly productive way to engage with the kernel development
community.  Especiually when the person who was complaining was the
HFS maintainer, and the mailing list that he *should* have been paying
attention to was linux-fsdevel, since it's marked as the primary list
where HFS bugs and development issues should be discussed, and
linux-fsdevel was one of the mailing lists where the 64-bit inode
proposal was cc'ed --- maybe that says something about how engaged he
*really* was with Linux Kernel development.

But hey, it's open source.  Forking is always allowed.  My guess is
that a fork would involve a stagnating code base that won't be to keep
up with bug fixes, including security bugs.  This is especially if
most people working on 32-bit architectures are as engaged as the OP.
Most forked projects don't end up working well, but everyone has the
right to find that out for themselves.

Cheers,

						- Ted