From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965312AbWHOJCt (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:02:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965311AbWHOJCs (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:02:48 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:8354 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965310AbWHOJCr (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:02:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:02:43 +0100 From: Al Viro To: David Howells Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RHEL5 PATCH 2/4] VFS: Make inode numbers 64-bits Message-ID: <20060815090243.GT29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20060815013114.GS29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20060814211504.27190.10491.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060814211509.27190.51352.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <7619.1155630777@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7619.1155630777@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 09:32:57AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Al Viro wrote: > > > NAK. There's no need to touch i_ino and a lot of reasons for not doing > > that. > > Like all those printks that write ambiguous messages because they can't report > the full inode number? I'm not so worried about those because they're for the > most part debugging messages, but still, they *can* report invalid information > because i_ino is not big enough in error and warning messages. In fs-independent code? How many of those do we actually have?