[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612311550200.15327@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:02:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Finding hardlinks
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:50:11PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> I don't see any problems with changing struct kstat. There would be
>> reservations against changing inode.i_ino though.
>>
>> So filesystems that have 64bit inodes will need a specialized
>> getattr() method instead of generic_fillattr().
>
> And they are already free to do so. And no, struct kstat doesn't need
> to be changed - it has u64 ino already.
If I return 64-bit values as ino_t, 32-bit programs will get EOVERFLOW on
stat attempt (even if they are not going to use st_ino in any way) --- I
know that POSIX specifies it, but the question is if it is useful.
What is the correct solution? Mount option that can differentiate between
32-bit colliding inode numbers and 64-bit non-colliding inode numbers? Or
is there any better idea.
Given the fact that glibc compiles anything by default with 32-bit ino_t,
I wonder if returning 64-bit inode number is possible at all.
Mikulas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists