>>>>> On 17 Sep 2003 10:33:47 -0400, Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> writes:
Nathan> Does anyone know why the IA64 platform-specific ino_t
Nathan> definition is an int and not a long? Patch below fixes this
Nathan> problem for me but I wonder if there will be side-effects I
Nathan> haven't considered (i.e. was there a reason for making this
Nathan> 32 bits originally?). If not, could the IA64 maintainers
Nathan> push this patch around to the official kernel trees for me?
Nathan> (pretty please)
Jes> Hi Nathan,
Jes> I am actually surprised it's still a 32 bit int in the
Jes> kernel. I deliberately used 64 bit types in glibc so it could
Jes> be done right. Must have slipped on fixing the kernel for this
Jes> one.
Jes> David?
Extending ino_t to 64 bits came up last October [1]. AFAIK, nobody
bothered to investigate & send a patch, so things didn't change since
then.
--david
[1] http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/linux-ia64/0210/3952.html
|