Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:37:23 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Portable way to compare struct stat's? Message-ID: <3836F873.D3B989FE@softweyr.com> References: <XFMail.991118185611.jdp@polstra.com> <3836DF98.9A84EC44@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>
> John Polstra wrote:
> >
> > Well, the POSIX requirement isn't optional. If a system doesn't
> > meet it then it is not POSIX-compliant. So any application that is
> > targeted toward POSIX systems is perfectly within its rights to rely
> > on the requirement.
>
> It was stated before that FreeBSD complies with POSIX except where
> POSIX is broken. Well, it's broken here. st_dev+st_ino *can't* work
> with modern, distributed filesystems (without undue overhead).
It's not broken in this case. 2^16 (st_dev) is certainly enough to uniquely
indentify all mounted filesystems, and 2^32 is (by definition) enough to
uniquely indentify each of the files on a filesystem. Discussions (with
strong, valid reasons) about expanding the size of ino_t should be carried
out on -arch.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3836F873.D3B989FE>