From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n4SFI7PG260429 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 10:18:07 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CF1A4FAED96 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 08:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.redhat.com (mx2.redhat.com [66.187.237.31]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HCghAb3XqD56FehL for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 08:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A1EAB31.7090604@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:18:09 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: regarding the inode64 mount option References: <4A1E81D8.7010706@dermichi.com> <20090528145612.GA14684@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20090528145612.GA14684@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Michael Weissenbacher , xfs@oss.sgi.com Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:21:44PM +0200, Michael Weissenbacher ... >> I haven't found any definitive clear documentation abount the pro's >> and con's, so maybe you can give me some hints :-) > > The only reason speaking against inode64 are old buggy programs that > can't cope with a 64bit ino_t, Eric had a quite scary list of those > in Fedora somewhere.. http://sandeen.net/wordpress/?p=9 -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs