Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:43:36 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] handling 64bit values for st_ino] |
| |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |