On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 08:54:10PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2017-Jun-16, at 7:48 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:01:43PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > >> . . . > > > > UFS uses 32bit inodes, changing to 64bit is both pointless currently, and > > causes on-disk layout incompatibilities. > > > > As a consequence, use of ino_t (64bit) or uint32_t for inode numbers are > > almost always interchangeable, unless used for specifying on-disk layout. > > UFS correctly uses (and was changed to use) uint32_t for inode numbers > > in the disk-layout definitions. Other places, which calculate inode > > numbers from inode block numbers, or do some other calculations with > > inodes, are fine with either width. > > > > That is, I believe that all instances which I looked at during the > > ino64 preparation are fine. > > Thanks for letting me know --and good to know. > > I've added a note to the bugzilla report of the failed > linking of boot1.elf for powerpc and powerpc64 that > you have indicated that if the __udivdi3 is supplied to > allow the linking to complete for builds based on clang > then the result should operate okay for the mix of types. > (The report is bugzilla 220024 .) I never said that.Received on Sat Jun 17 2017 - 08:24:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:12 UTC