From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965299AbWHOIdL (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:33:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965298AbWHOIdK (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:33:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:39813 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965237AbWHOIdJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:33:09 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20060815013114.GS29920@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> To: Al Viro Cc: David Howells , 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 X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 22.0.50 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:32:57 +0100 Message-ID: <7619.1155630777@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. David