Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-r574664 (2007-09-11) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.0-r574664 Received: from cuda.sgi.com ([192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5SFOmBw011331 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:24:48 -0700 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1214666749-6f88029e0000-NocioJ X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 5433218472A3 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ByOnIINMZeKeIgxE for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by verein.lst.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with ESMTP id m5SFPeNW022651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:40 +0200 Received: (from hch@localhost) by verein.lst.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id m5SFPeSK022649; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:40 +0200 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:40 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Eric Sandeen Cc: markgw@sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option Subject: Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option Message-ID: <20080628152540.GB22484@lst.de> References: <20080627153928.GA31384@lst.de> <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> <486589E7.9010705@sgi.com> <4865BEAB.4030108@sandeen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4865BEAB.4030108@sandeen.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Barracuda-Connect: verein.lst.de[213.95.11.210] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1214666750 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.1, rules version 3.1.54591 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/6021/Wed Feb 27 15:55:48 2008 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 16639 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: hch@lst.de Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs 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.I'll do the helper instead.