From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 1 16:56:23 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AAA16A468; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:56:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp6.server.rpi.edu (smtp6.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D1F13C458; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:56:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp6.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l51Fq8Sd021669; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:52:08 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20070601102516.Q77697@fledge.watson.org> References: <20070601102516.Q77697@fledge.watson.org> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:52:07 -0400 To: Robert Watson , current@FreeBSD.org From: Garance A Drosehn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam scanning disabled X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.226 Cc: Subject: Re: Pending TrustedBSD stuff, etc. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:56:23 -0000 At 10:34 AM +0100 6/1/07, Robert Watson wrote: > >Things I would like to see happen, but may not get to: > >- Peter Wemm has been talking about moving us to 64-bit inode numbers > for years; with the advent of very large file systems and their > presumed popularity over the coming 3-5 years, it would be really > good to have this in 7.0 or it will have to wait for 8.0. However, > this is quite a disruptive change, as it requires package rebuilds, > etc, and we're almost out of time. I suspect this should wait. It would probably be better to group together all the other changes to filesystem stat-ish data that we've also been talking about for years, and do them all in the same major release. I don't know at what level you mean to move to 64-bit inode numbers, but if (for instance) you meant a 64-bit value for st_ino, then I'd also like to see a 64-bit value for st_dev at the same time. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = drosehn@rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA