On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 08:54:10PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2017-Jun-16, at 7:48 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com>
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:01:43PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> >> . . .
> > UFS uses 32bit inodes, changing to 64bit is both pointless currently, and
> > causes on-disk layout incompatibilities.
> > As a consequence, use of ino_t (64bit) or uint32_t for inode numbers are
> > almost always interchangeable, unless used for specifying on-disk layout.
> > UFS correctly uses (and was changed to use) uint32_t for inode numbers
> > in the disk-layout definitions. Other places, which calculate inode
> > numbers from inode block numbers, or do some other calculations with
> > inodes, are fine with either width.
> > That is, I believe that all instances which I looked at during the
> > ino64 preparation are fine.
> Thanks for letting me know --and good to know.
> I've added a note to the bugzilla report of the failed
> linking of boot1.elf for powerpc and powerpc64 that
> you have indicated that if the __udivdi3 is supplied to
> allow the linking to complete for builds based on clang
> then the result should operate okay for the mix of types.
> (The report is bugzilla 220024 .)
I never said that.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"