From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Mar 10 0:18: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A102137B400 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g2A8HkBo035385; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:17:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Increasing the size of dev_t and ino_t In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 09 Mar 2002 19:03:08 EST." Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:17:46 +0100 Message-ID: <35384.1015748266@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Garance A Drosihn writes: >>With DEVFS and properly written drivers, this field can be >>randomly assigned and will have no practical importance to the >>kernel. This is the direction we should move. >> >>The only argument I know for expanding it would be to make the >>slight hack used to hide the dictomy between the dev_t (a pointer) >>and the userland (u)dev_t (an integer) simpler on 64bit archs. > >I don't see how this would work for OpenAFS. By that I mean that >I do not know how the dev_t-pointer that you're talking about is >used when implementing something like OpenAFS or ARLA support. I have no idea what the problem would be, so you will have to tell me before I can answer you... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message