From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 14 13:35:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C4CBC16A4CE; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:35:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 276B143D82; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:35:36 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0ELZE7E040516;
	Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:35:18 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200401142135.i0ELZE7E040516@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:35:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: rwatson@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040114114851.46433J-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: harti@FreeBSD.org
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: simplifying linux_emul_convpath()
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:35:48 -0000

On 14 Jan, Robert Watson wrote:

> ino_t probably does need to get bumped to 64-bit on FreeBSD at some point,
> because at some point we will have a local file system that can usefully
> represent more than 2 billion files.  I assume we didn't do the bump with
> UFS2 because of the potential disruption for applications, etc.

We'd have a heck of a time fsck'ing such a file system on a 32 bit
machine.