Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 1:05 AM -0400 6/6/05, Suleiman Souhlal wrote: > >> >> On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Scott Long wrote: >> >>> It's a huge win for CPU overhead in the filesystem, especially >>> when we start talking about increasing the size of m_links >>> field and possibly going 64-bit inode numbers. >> >> >> Talking about going to 64-bit inode numbers, how would we deal >> with the change in stat(2)? > > > By making some sort of incompatible change to stat(2). This has > been discussed from time-to-time. It's another change that I > would have liked to have seen (at least for the stat routines) > in 6.0, but right now I suspect it will not happen until 7.0. > We can't go making incremental incompatibilities to the filesystem without a good deal of planning. This is the type of thing that would go into a 'UFS3'. I have some long-term plans here, but I need to get the initial proof-of-concept journalling working before I start to seriously consider what else would be in UFS3. ScottReceived on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 11:47:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:35 UTC