| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:52:08 -0500 |
| Cc: | markgw@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20080628152540.GB22484@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <20080627153928.GA31384@xxxxxx> <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> <486589E7.9010705@xxxxxxx> <4865BEAB.4030108@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20080628152540.GB22484@xxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) |
Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:31:39PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> I guess I'm ambivalent too, is it really that invasive? Maybe 10, 15 >> lines of code looks like? > > Currently it's implemented by adding m_inoadd surrounded by an > #if XFS_BIG_INUMS. This can be cleaned up by adding a helper ala > > xfs_ino_t xfs_user_ino(struct xfs_mount *mp, xfs_ino_t ino); > > but I don't really see the point as the option seems quite useless. But > if others thing the option is worth keeping around I'll do the helper > instead. Well, to be honest i've never even enabled it :) how much does xfsqa use it? I guess I don't really care if it goes. -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Xfs Access to block zero exception and system crash, Sagar Borikar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] re-remove xfs custom bitops, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |