From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 13 07:14:40 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FC937B401
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 13 May 2003 07:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63FB943F93
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 13 May 2003 07:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4DEEcYP021540;
	Tue, 13 May 2003 16:14:38 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 May 2003 16:01:15 +0200."
             <xzpvfwf6j4k.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> 
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:14:38 +0200
Message-ID: <21539.1052835278@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: fsid_t 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:14:40 -0000

In message <xzpvfwf6j4k.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
>fsid_t is currently defined as a struct containing an array of two
>32-bit ints:
>
>typedef struct fsid { int32_t val[2]; } fsid_t; /* filesystem id type */
>
>which is ridiculous as the only place where this is actually useful is
>when it is initialized (val[0] is set to the udev_t and val[1] to the
>vfs type number)

And we should be very careful with the udev_t thing, since udev_t's
are not very constant across reboots.

>Are there any objections to making fsid_t a uint64_t?

no objection from here.

-- 
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.