Re: IA64 ino_t incorrectly sized?

[Jes Sorensen <jes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "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 32
Nathan> bits originally?).  If not, could the IA64 maintainers push
Nathan> this patch around to the official kernel trees for me?
Nathan> (pretty please)

Hi Nathan,

I am actually surprised it's still a 32 bit int in the kernel. I
deliberately used 64 bit types in glibc so it could be done
right. Must have slipped on fixing the kernel for this one.

David?

Cheers,
Jes