From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 4 03:55:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845B416A4CF; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:55:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311CF43D46; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:55:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i643tlJc009754; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 23:55:48 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040704020915.GI95729@elvis.mu.org> References: <200407031322.i63DMdqC084182@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040703230127.GG95729@elvis.mu.org> <20040704004444.GA52008@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040704020915.GI95729@elvis.mu.org> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 23:55:47 -0400 To: Alfred Perlstein , Tim Robbins From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf NOTES files ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 03:55:49 -0000 At 7:09 PM -0700 7/3/04, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >* Tim Robbins [040703 17:41] wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 03, 2004, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > What are the implications of expanding the VFS API to take > > > 64bit inodes? > > > > Widening ino_t to 64 bits would change the layout/size of struct > > stat, so we'd have to add a new stat() syscall (as well as fstat(), > > lstat()) and add compatibility code for binaries that expect the > > old layout. We'd also have to [...] > > I think it's something that would be best left until 6-CURRENT. > >Bah, we can do it. :) The implications are that it certainly ain't going to happen as part of 5.x-stable. It did come up at the DevSummit (at Usenix) as one of the projects we expect to tackle for the 6.0-branch. The people at the DevSummit were also pretty adamant that we must not take as long to get to a production-quality 6.x-stable as it has taken to get to 5.x-stable. I'll also note that I am hoping to see a 64-bit dev_t happen at the same time, for the benefit of filesystems like OpenAFS. ...but I am sure all this will all be written up in a more useful form and with much more detail after everyone gets back from Usenix. I was only there for Tuesday and Wednesday, while most developers were there for the whole Usenix conference. I suspect that discussions continued after the "official" DevSummit was over. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu