On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:57:21AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
>
> Has this potential degradation been measured? This is a lot of extra
> complexity which needs to justified by the resulting performance.
What extra complexity?
> > Fix is pretty cheap and consists of two parts:
> >1) widen struct kstat ->ino to u64, add a macro (check_inumber()) to
> >be used in callers of ->getattr() that want to store ->ino in possibly
> >narrower fields and care about overflows (stuff like sys_old_stat() with
> >its 16bit st_ino clearly doesn't ;-)
> It seems to me that a type with a name which better matches the intended
> semantics would be a better choice than u64. Even something like ino64_t
> would help file systems maintainers to correctly implement the appropriate
> support.
Why the hell would fs maintainers needs to touch their code at all?
Have you actually read that patches?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
