From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DF9A3C13F9 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 11:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777031936; cv=none; b=mOwjAgCKWbm8MtnPid+LDHbNeUOXr2YnIv5us4A1tjula15qsVi6Y79sSyicP5J16QvB04Vzrx4vSNWXre8rZGrKPUhfd1hnJzMdVLVRuW2LX4yseFA3qnHOjvIDmgHr11IfnKVa51jKma6QtqrlJL+3jFOd0bcMpOquKPtwdM0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777031936; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cwXw/hk7xxL51Y+Zsrzjz0CLFN9hpTQm4SQyyAX0yCw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=M3YNMzxG3wFX9scb+OaAwzascvMTS3P6Zx45w5rPaNt4A8Ku1JY6RD4CqsfM8DmnU+MvK/aSvGOqI5odn6pNKDkkmZ+gabHxWew3UbyXJp/Wts+YU00iR/AeCsnkV2TLHTISXxgNsDQFjVUlGvB1R7Xi2M7d7ro+eTUKu2qaEdw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=mKdNEitJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="mKdNEitJ" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org (pool-173-48-114-3.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.114.3]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 63OBwFh3025426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:58:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1777031898; bh=7Do7ZOMPRUWDQKzANcmTBnWE/rKlX816lGdx5pwJjw4=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mKdNEitJOMuylAGTjSYqUb5sJ/1wAK74lkSwm0FClBm52cDqN57RuGxYNZ94a/xm6 5NimJpUyuPimpLJdxGDhK5PkNx/Gw0J6qQrgZ7D4UPbS5/BC9BIwcKNCg5ixF4TcZL LYFQM8fmhsKwLspPnYXBEKV31v56kB28uSPLYbsUhpqbCZCGXyw/hbVov/vVF5XOkU naqFmltjK+BWmfXpt1FO5BNN7ohRz87YcsBrgoVCOnq6phQm6vHModmHGkdgd6C3nJ /V/1gdgoFgFPruJ5Y5ViW3Pk8+9ud5esBHMOJ5FxpFtvUc8VioDHaqNPYMb3dnCcyg UtSjdJkUdyMNw== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 3642064E1102; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:57:15 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kolbj=F8rn?= Barmen Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz , Jeff Layton , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christian Brauner , Christoph Hellwig , Jan Kara , Al Viro , linux-m68k , linux-sh Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Should we make inode->i_ino a u64? Message-ID: <20260424115715.GC11127@macsyma-wired.lan> References: <08f8444c7237566ffb4ba8c9eb0ab4b4a5f14440.camel@kernel.org> <1b340c4e635dcab3bed8c52d6381b4c341c0741a.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <20260415144722.GB74178@macsyma-wired.lan> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: 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