Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Scott Long <scottl_at_samsco.org> writes: > >>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'. > > > This is primarily an API issue, not a filesystem layout issue. We > already have at least one filesystem with 64-bit inodes (msdosfs). > > DES What do you mean it's not a layout issue? We can't make incompatible layout changes whever we feel like it, or else transportability of filesystems is completely lost and everyone who wants to boot more than just the Last And Greatest on their system winds up with unnessary pain. Anyways, I'm not looking for someone to get a wild idea that we need UFS3 right now. There are a bunch of features that would be ideal for UFS3 at a later date when we've had time to sit down and think about how to do it right. Going off and adjusting di_nlink to 32 bits and dot_ino to 64 bits and declaring that to be 'UFS3' is not a good strategy. ScottReceived on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 12:57:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:35 UTC