From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan 15 23:28:06 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 5B54D16A4CE; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au
	(c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1B3F843D5A; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:28:04 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au)
Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au
	[127.0.0.1])i0G7RroW092758;	Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:27:58 +1100 (EST)
	(envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au)
Received: (from jeremyp@localhost)i0G7RrRx092757;
	Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:27:53 +1100 (EST)	(envelope-from jeremyp)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:27:52 +1100
From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>
To: rwatson@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040116072752.GA89141@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040114114851.46433J-100000@fledge.watson.org>
	<200401142135.i0ELZE7E040516@gw.catspoiler.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040114114851.46433J-100000@fledge.watson.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
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: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:28:06 -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.

Note that last Friday, there was a posting in -hackers by someone who was
having problems with a filesystem containing >2^31 inodes.

My personal opinion is that having 2^31 files in a single filesystem is
probably a mistake but I'm sure someone will come up with a sane reason
for requiring it.

Peter