From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5SJp8ac012389 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:51:08 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 60E6212376DB for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id KlLhRKRkRDFoppP7 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48669668.4060204@sandeen.net> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:52:08 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option References: <20080627153928.GA31384@lst.de> <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> <486589E7.9010705@sgi.com> <4865BEAB.4030108@sandeen.net> <20080628152540.GB22484@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20080628152540.GB22484@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: markgw@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:31:39PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> I guess I'm ambivalent too, is it really that invasive? Maybe 10, 15 >> lines of code looks like? > > Currently it's implemented by adding m_inoadd surrounded by an > #if XFS_BIG_INUMS. This can be cleaned up by adding a helper ala > > xfs_ino_t xfs_user_ino(struct xfs_mount *mp, xfs_ino_t ino); > > but I don't really see the point as the option seems quite useless. But > if others thing the option is worth keeping around I'll do the helper > instead. Well, to be honest i've never even enabled it :) how much does xfsqa use it? I guess I don't really care if it goes. -Eric